SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244201. June 10, 2019.]
ADELA VELASCO, petitioner, vs.MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC PHILIPPINES CORPORATION [NOW PANASONIC MANUFACTURING PHILIPPINES]/SEIICHI FUKAMI, PRESIDENT, HIROKAZU UMEDA, FINANCE DIRECTOR, BARTOLOME SARANGAYA, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, JAIME TIONGSON, GENERAL MANAGER, AND SINICHI HOSONE, PERSONNEL ADVISER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244201 (Adela Velasco v. Matsushita Electric Philippines Corporation [now Panasonic Manufacturing Philippines]/Seiichi Fukami, President, Hirokazu Umeda, Finance Director, Bartolome Sarangaya, Personnel Director, Jaime Tiongson, General Manager, and Sinichi Hosone, Personnel Adviser)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for having been filed out of time. Records reveal that petitioner Adela Velasco (petitioner) received a copy of the assailed January 15, 2019 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 25, 2019. 3 Instead of filing a petition, petitioner filed three (3) motions for extension of time to file a Rule 45 Petition, totaling to forty-five (45) days. 4 Under Section 2, 5 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court may, for a justifiable reason and before the expiration of the initial fifteen (15)-day reglementary period to file the Rule 45 Petition, grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the same. Thus, reckoning from February 9, 2019, which is the expiration of the reglementary period for the filing of the instant petition, petitioner had only until March 11, 2019 to file the said petition. However, she belatedly filed the petition on March 28, 2019. 6 HTcADC
In any event, the CA properly denied petitioner's motion for extension to file a Rule 65 Petition 7 for failure of petitioner to show any compelling reason that would merit the said extension. Aside from petitioner's bare allegations of her supposed financial incapacity, she failed to provide any proof to substantiate the same. 8 Verily, petitioner failed to show the existence of exceptional circumstances which would warrant the extension of the sixty (60)-day reglementary period within which to file a Rule 65 Petition. 9 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Titled "Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for the Designation of Special Sheriff Under the Control and Supervision of the Honorable Supreme Court to Implement the Final Executory Resolution Dated 23 November 2009 of the Supreme Court Third Division"; rollo, pp. 28-59.
2.Id. at 115-116. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3. See id. at 31.
4. See id. at 31-32.
5. Section 2. Time for Filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.
6. See rollo, p. 28.
7. Not attached to the rollo.
8. See rollo, pp. 111-112.
9.Castells v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, 716 Phil. 667, 673-674 (2013).