SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234598. January 31, 2018.]
MARY JEAN S. VILLA, petitioner,vs. BANCO DE ORO-UNIBANK, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated31 January 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234598 (Mary Jean S. Villa v. Banco de Oro-Unibank, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the July 14, 2017 and October 4, 2017 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151412 for failure of petitioner Mary Jean S. Villa (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in: (a) upholding the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 66 over the complaint for sum of money filed by respondent Banco de Oro-Unibank, Inc. (respondent) against her; and (b) dismissing her petition for review against the May 30, 2017 Decision 2 (RTC ruling) rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 100996 for: (i) having been belatedly filed one (1) day beyond the reglementary period; (ii) failure to attach the duplicate original copy or certified true copy of the January 13, 2017 MeTC Decision, as well as other pleadings and material portions of the record that would support the allegations in the petition; and (iii) being patently without merit.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the MeTC of Makati City had jurisdiction over the complaint considering that the amount of the demand therein falls within its jurisdictional amount of P400,000.00. 3
The CA was likewise correct in dismissing the petition for review sent through private courier LBC for having been belatedly filed one (1) day beyond the reglementary period, 4 which expired on June 29, 2017, reckoned from petitioner's receipt of the RTC ruling on June 14, 2017. 5 Though filing of pleadings through a private courier is not prohibited by the Rules, it is established in jurisprudence that the date of actual receipt of pleadings by the court is deemed the date of filing of such pleadings, and not the date of delivery thereof to a private letter-forwarding agency. 6 Petitioner's failure to attach the duplicate original copy or certified true copy of the January 13, 2017 MeTC Decision, as well as other pleadings and material portions of the record, is likewise a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. 7
Anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation, 8 which petitioner failed to discharge. Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. 9 Petitioner's claim that a relaxation of the rules is justified by the merits of the case 10 was correctly rejected by the CA, which found petitioner to have negligently surrendered the subject credit card to another person and must, therefore, suffer the consequences arising from its use.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-53 and 40-42, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
2.Id. at 276-281. Penned by Presiding Judge Andres Bartolome Soriano.
3. See Section 33 in relation to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7691. See also Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 65-2004 dated May 13, 2004.
4. Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court (Rules) provides:
SEC. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis supplied)
5.Rollo, p. 46.
6. See Bautista v. Bautista, G.R. No. 202088, March 8, 2017.
7. Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules provides:
SEC. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphases supplied)
8. See Prieto v. Alpadi Development Corporation, 715 Phil. 705, 719 (2013).
9. See Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016, 796 SCRA 319, 326; Building Care Corp./Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg, 700 Phil. 749, 756 (2012); Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza, 606 Phil. 796, 804 (2009).
10.Rollo, p. 23.