ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138897. July 5, 1999]

LEON CHIQUITO vs. HON. VALENTIN NAGAYNAY, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5, 1999.

G.R. No. 138897 (Leon Chiquito vs. Hon. Valentin Nagaynay, et al.)

From the decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) dated June 8, 1993 in DARAB Case No. 604, ordering petitioner to pay rentals and attorney's fees, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On March 3, 1999, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling that the appeal taken by the petitioner was filed out of time and for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Hence, this petition.

We find no reversible error in the decision of the respondent court, to wit:

Counsel for petitioner received a copy of the Decision dated June 8, 1993 on August 28, 1993. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof on September 13, 1993. He received a copy of the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on September 3, 1994, leaving him only one (1) day with which to appeal the Decision dated June 8, 1993 to the Board. Defendant, however, filed his appeal only on September 16, 1994, clearly out of time. For failure of petitioner to perfect within the reglementary period, respondent dismissed his appeal via an order dated October 27, 1994. Not contented with the action of the PARAD, petitioner again interposed a Motion for Reconsideration of this last order of public respondent, which again was denied in a Order dated may 27, 1997. 1 [Rollo, p. 19.]

Well-rooted is the principle that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court or body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain the appeal.2 [Pedroso v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373 (1996).]

As explained in Galang vs. Court of Appeals:3 [199 SCRA 683 (1991).]

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of a injustice not commensurate within the degree of his thoughtlessness in an complying with the procedure prescribed.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE