ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147848. January 24, 2005]
DAGDAGAN vs. BACOLOD
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 24 2005.
G.R. No. 147848 ( Helen G. Dagdagan vs. Marani Bacolod.)
Records show that Helen Dagdagan, petitioner, filed with the Office of the Regional Executive Director, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Cordillera Administrative Region, Bagnio City, a letter-protest dated March 21, 1996 against the Townsite Sales Application of Marani Bacolod, respondent, involving the parcel of land situated at Residence Section "L," San Luis Village, Baguio City. Petitioner alleged in her protest that she and her husband have been in possession of the land in the concept of owners.
On May 2, 1996, DENR Regional Executive Director Oscar M. Hamada dismissed petitioner's protest, holding that the area is classified as a disposable public land and open for disposition to qualified individuals, like respondent herein; that petitioner, being a registered owner of several parcels of land in Baguio City, is disqualified to purchase the land involved; and that it is the Government's policy to equitably diffuse lands to the people.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a letter dated March 17, 1997.
On appeal by petitioner to the DENR, docketed as DENR Case No. 7952, the latter, on September 8, 1998, through then DENR Secretary Antonio Cerilles, dismissed the appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated April 14, 1999.
Petitioner then elevated her case to the Office of the President, docketed as O.P. Case No. 99-K-8887. On June 19, 2000, then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"In view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED, and the questioned decision of the Secretary of the DENR dated September 8, 1998 is accordingly AFFIRMED."
In an Order dated August 11, 2000 of the Office of the President, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
On September 5, 2000, petitioner, through, counsel filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The Appellate Court, in CA G.R. SP. No. 60713, granted petitioner "a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days or until September 21, 2000 within which to file the Petition for Review." [1] cralaw
On September 21, 2000, petitioner's counsel, instead of filing the petition, filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension" of five (5) days or until September 25, 2000 to file the same on the ground that his computer was infected by virus, thereby erasing the entire draft of the petition.
On September 25, 2000, petitioner filed her petition. However, on November 8, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued its Resolution [2] cralaw denying petitioner's second motion for extension and dismissing her petition for being filed out of time, thus:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the non-extendible period granted in the first extension and considering that the reason stated in the second motion for extension is without merit, the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension is hereby DENIED.
Consequently, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is DISMISSED outright, for being filed out of time pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 6, Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED."
In a Resolution dated March 16, 2001, [3] cralaw petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Appellate Court.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner avers that the outright dismissal of her petition by the Court of Appeals is not in accordance with the rules authorizing an extension for the most compelling reason.
In his comment, respondent contends that the ground relied upon by petitioner is not a compelling reason. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in denying her second motion for extension and in dismissing her petition for review outright.
The instant petition lacks merit.
Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
"Sec. 4. Period of Appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo . Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee 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 ." (underscoring ours)
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the reason stated in her second motion is not compelling. Petitioner's counsel should have been systematic in his legal work. He should have saved the encoded petition in a diskette and have it printed. Had he followed this procedure, he would not have encountered a problem when his computer was infected by virus.
Deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by litigants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to their whims and caprices." [4] cralaw Moreover, rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice, such that strict adherence thereto is required. [5] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Assistant Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw See Annex "A," Petition, Rollo at 24.
[2] cralaw Id.
[3] cralaw Annex "B," Petition, Rollo at 27.
[4] cralaw Casim vs. Flordeliza, G.R. No. 139511. January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 387.
[5] cralaw Manila Hotel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143574, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 520
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
