ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 139766.� February 7, 2005]
SALAS vs. PAGCOR
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 7 2005.
G.R. No. 139766 (Rafael M. Salas vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation.)
Before us is the petition for review on certiorari filed by Rafael M. Salas against the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) assailing the Resolution dated February 1, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49704 and its Resolutions dated April 20, 1999 and July 29, 1999.
Rafael M. Salas, herein petitioner, was respondent PAGCOR's employee assigned at its Internal Security Staff. On December 3, 1991, respondent dismissed petitioner from the service for loss of trust and confidence arising from his alleged betting in the games through a proxy.
In June, 1998, respondent's Adjudication Committee conducted a series of hearing. Thereafter, upon recommendation of the Committee, respondent's Board of Directors dismissed petitioner from the service for grave misconduct, dishonesty, violation of company rules and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Upon appeal, the Civil Service Commission dismissed the same.
Petitioner then seasonably filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49704. However, the Appellate Court dismissed the petition for petitioner's failure to attach thereto "certified true copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations in the petition as required under Section 6(c), Rule 43" of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution dated April 20, 1999, thus:
"To the motion for reconsideration, petitioner-movant attached the document that would support his petition (Annexes "A" to "J"). Petitioner, however, has preferred no explanation why he failed to attach said documents when he filed the petition.
Under Supreme Court Circular No. 1-99 and Administrative Circiular No. 3-96, subsequent compliance with the requirements of a petition for review shall not warrant any reconsideration of the order of dismissal unless the court is fully satisfied that the "non-compliance was not in any way attributable to the party despite due diligence on his part, and that there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make such other dispositions as it may seem just and equitable. We find such reason wanting in the present case.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is hereby denied."
Unfazed by this turn of events, petitioner then filed a second motion for reconsideration. Again, it was denied by the Court of Appeals, thus:
"As a second motion for reconsideration is barred by the Rules (Sec. 3, Rule 9, Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals [RIRCA]; Sec. 4, Interim Rules), the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of April 20, 1999 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of February 1, 199 dismissing the petition for review is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
In the instant petition, petitioner alleged, among others, that:
"The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration which raises valid and meritorious grounds due to non-compliance with Section 6 (c) of Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that arose out of honest mistake and without an intent to delay or to prejudice the just and proper administration of the proceedings of this case."
In his comment on the petition, the Solicitor General averred that the right to appeal is a statutoiy right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the Rules.
The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 49704. Petitioner's failure to attach thereto the required various documents in support of his allegations violates Section 6, Rule 43 of the same Code which provides:
SEC. 6. Contents of the petition. - The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly leible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (2a)
Pursuant to Section 7 of the same Rule, failure to comply with the requirements under Section 6 warrants the dismissal of the petition, thus:
SEC 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirement. -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. (n)
Moreover, petitioner's second motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Resolution denying the petition is a prohibited motion under Section 5, Rule 37. On this ground alone, the instant petition is vulnerable to dismissal.
In fine, we rule that the Court of Appeals did not err in rendering the challenged Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED WITH FINALITY. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
