ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139286. August 16, 1999]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 16, 1999.

G.R. No. 139286 (Ysmael Zepeda vs. Court of Appeals and Tobaco Bel-Air Realty Corp.)

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 which seeks to set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated on April 30, 1999 and the denial resolution of its motion for reconsideration.

In a nutshell, herein petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The said dismissal was due to the failure of the petitioner to file his brief within the reglementary period.

Petitioner asseverates that the failure of the file brief was due to the withdrawal of his counsel and that being an ordinary layman, he did not know the legal implication of his failure to find a substitute counsel.

After due consideration, we find the petition to be wanting of merit.

Once again, if only to explain this last point have we bothered to come out with this resolution. Well-rooted is the principle that procedural rules are not to be belittle 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 an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

A perusal of the records indicate that this petition is replete with technical violations which by themselves justify its outright dismissal: a) failure to attached a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the resolution dated January 6, 1999; b) failure to state material dates so as to determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition.

It should also be mentioned that even if the petition is treated as filed under Rule 65, such recourse is improper, for what petitioner should have followed is the procedure under Rule 45.

WHEREFORE, petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.