SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225976. September 14, 2016.]
MICHAEL MARK ODIAMAN VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. ICEL P. ARGANA AND EXPERIENTAL COMMUNICATIONS INTEGRATING TRADE & EVENTS, INC. (EXCITE, INC.), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225976 — Michael Mark Odiaman Villanueva vs. Icel P. Argana and Experiental Communications Integrating Trade & Events, Inc. (EXCITE, Inc.)
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140412 committed any reversible error in issuing its assailed Resolutions dated November 27, 2015 and July 19, 2016 which respectively dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed therewith due to a technical reason and denied the motion for reconsideration thereto.
Petitioner does not deny that he failed to adequately satisfy the statement of material dates requirement under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, he explains that such inadequacy was brought about by oversight and his heavy reliance on the belief that the date of receipt of the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was reflected in paragraph 28 of his certiorari petition. Unknowingly, however, the said date was omitted/deleted during the final printing of the petition.
The Court has time and again stressed that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law." 1
Notably, the CA already gave petitioner the chance to correct the technical deficiencies in his certiorari petition through its Resolution of June 5, 2015. Despite this, petitioner still failed to adequately rectify the same. "It cannot be overemphasized that procedural rules have their own wholesome rationale in the orderly administration of justice. Justice has to be administered according to the Rules in order to obviate arbitrariness, caprice, or whimsicality." 2 Indeed, there are exceptions to the strict application of the rules but for these exceptions to come into play, there should be, first and foremost, a plausible explanation for the party-litigant's non-compliance with the rules he proposes to be exempted from. 3 "Absent any acceptable explanation, the party's plain violation of the rules will not be countenanced." 4 Here, the reason given by petitioner in failing to comply with the rules is far from acceptable especially considering the fact that he was given the chance to correct the deficiencies but still failed to adequately do so. Moreover, he failed to explain his failure to state the date of his filing of a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.
Besides, the determination of one of the issues raised by petitioner, i.e., that he already attained regular status upon hiring when respondent company failed to provide him the qualifying standards, involves a question of fact. Suffice it to say that questions of fact are not within the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari. Moreover, based on the records, the Court is not inclined to depart from the finding that there is no constructive dismissal in this case. After all, findings of fact made by the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC are not only entitled to great respect, but even finality, and are considered binding if the same are supported by substantial evidence. 5 EHaASD
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated November 27, 2015 and July 19, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140412.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. vs. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 445 (2013).
2. Tible & Tible Company, Inc. vs. Royal Savings and Loan Association, 574 Phil. 20, 38 (2008).
3. Id.
4. Id. at 38-39.
5. Cervantes vs. City Service Corporation, G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016.