ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139915. August 30, 2000]

SPS. DELFINO, et al. vs. SANTIAGO DELFINO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 30 2000.

G.R. No. 139915 (Spouses Roseller Delfino and Elsie Delfino, et al. vs. Santiago Delfino, et al.)

This petition assails the Resolutions dated February 25 and August 26, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in UDK-SP No. 2858, denying for lack of merit petitioners' motion for extension to file a petition for review hence dismissing the case and denying the motion for reconsideration, respectively.

After a thorough review of the pleadings and the resolution on record, however, we find no substantial reason to disturb the Court of Appeals' rulings, for it had not committed any reversible error and it had decided the matter in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review before it because said petition was filed late. It was also not accompanied by the payment of docket fees. The appellate court, citing Videogram Regulatory Board vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 50 (1996), emphasized that certain procedural rules are inviolable. The perfection of an appeal or filing of a petition in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.

It should be stressed that, as held in Azores vs. SEC, 252 SCRA 387, 292 (1990), the "failure of a party to perfect his appeal or a petition in the manner and within the period fixed by law renders the decision sought to be appealed final, with the result that no court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the decision.

The appellate court in denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, rejected petitioners' plea that their late filing was excusable inasmuch as the records were received by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) in Quezon City from PAO, Camarines Sur, only on February 9, 1999, the last day for filing the petition for review such that the counsel filed the motion for extension to file the petition one day late. Counsel allegedly tendered, also belatedly, P500.00 as partial payment of docket fee which the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals reportedly refused. The Court of Appeals aptly pointed out, however, that the averment that partial payment was refused by said Clerk of Court is unsupported by any affidavit. All these circumstances considered, we are constrained to conclude that no reversible error could be imputed to both the assailed resolutions.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE