ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137616. September 29, 1999]

DALINGAY vs. CA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 29 1999.

G.R. No. 137616 (Cecilia Dalingay vs. Court of Appeals.)

On 19 July 1991 petitioner was charged by the Civil Service Commission, National Capital Region, with impersonation committed during the stenographer's examination conducted on 17 February 1992. For failure to file her answer, the CSC rendered its Resolution No. 9734-15 ex parte on 24 July 1997. Petitioner seasonably moved for reconsideration which the CSC denied in a resolution received by petitioner on 10 August 1998. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

Since the last day to appeal was 25 August 1998, the PAO filed a motion for extension of time to file petition until 9 September 1998. Unfortunately their messenger was not able to file the motion on 25 August 1998 "due to heavy outpour of rain which caused an extra-ordinary traffic" and managed to do so only the following day, 26 August 1998. Unaware of what had happened, the PAO filed its petition by registered mail on 9 September 1998.

On 11 September 1998 the PAO received copy of the Court of Appeals' resolution dated 4 September 1998 denying their motion for extension of time "for having been filed beyond the period sought to be extended." On 15 September 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4 September 1998 resolution with motion to admit petition for review. On 28 October 1998 petitioner received copy of CA resolution dated 19 October 1998 denying her petition for review for having been filed late. Her motion for reconsideration having been similarly denied on 17 December 1998 petitioner, litigating as a pauper, comes to this Court through a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) assailing the appellate court for its grave abuse of discretion in arbitrarily denying the motion for extension of time to file petition for review and in dismissing the petition for review without regard to the circumstances leading to the failure of counsel PAO to seasonably file the same.

The petition must be dismissed. No grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the appellate court for its denial of the motion for extension of time to file petition for review as well as the petition for review for late filing. The proper observance of the Rules of Court is imperative in an orderly administration of justice and constant tolerance or departure therefrom may lead to anarchy. Confusion and complete erosion of the Rules. Much too often, the perennial rains and heavy traffic have provided the parties with a very convenient excuse for invoking the liberal interpretation of the Rules especially those that deal with reglementary periods for filing pleadings. It is time that they be made to realize that reglementary periods have been placed in the Rules for a definite purpose, and that is, to forestall needless delay in the adjudication of cases. It is incumbent upon the litigants to take the appropriate steps to ensure prompt compliance.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to sufficiently show that respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed resolutions of 19 October 1998 and 17 December 1998. The Manifestation and Motion filed by the Office of the Solicitor General dated 12 May 1999 is NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE