ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139121. September 8, 1999]

ERLINDA TALOSA vs. SSS

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated SEPT 8 1999.

G.R. No. 139121 (Erlinda Talosa, representing her deceased husband Alejandro Talosa vs. Social Security System.)

Petitioner Erlinda Talosa filed a claim for income benefits with the Social Security System (SSS) for the death of her husband Alejandro Tolosa. Her claim was, however, denied by the SSS, as was her subsequent appeal to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC). She filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on April 21, 1999 on the following grounds:

Upon examination of the present petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended, and it appearing that it is defective or deficient at least in form, considering that it is not accompanied by - - -

1) A copy of the Decision of the Social Security System which allegedly denied the petitioner's claim for income benefits under Pres. Decree No. 626, as amended;

2) A copy of the Complaint, if any that the petitioner filed with the same Social Security System that gave rise to the Decision in question; and,

3) A copy of the employment contract allegedly entered into on March 8, 1978 by and between the petitioner Alejandro Tolosa and the Wallem Philippines Shipping, Incorporated.

All these in violation of �6 (c) of Rule 43, of the said Rules of Court Procedure, which provides:

"SEC. 6. Contents of the Petition. - The petition for review shall (a) . . .; (b) . . .; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible 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) . . . ." (Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE we hereby RESOLVED TO OUTRIGHTLY DISMISS the petition in accordance with Section 7 of the same Rule, to wit:

SEC. 7. Effect of Failure to comply with requirements. - 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 the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." (Emphasis supplied)

SO ORDERED.

Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that

1. THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING STRICT INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6 AND 7 OF RULE 43 OF THE NEW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

2. THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IGNORING THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Petitioner contends that, other than "a clearly legible duplicate original r a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from, "Rule 43, �6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not specify what documents should accompany a petition for review, implying thereby that the same should be left to the discretion of the party or counsel filing the petition. Petitioner further contends that as her claim against the SSS involves social welfare legislation, to dismiss her appeal on technicality would be violative of the social justice clause of the construction.

Petitioners' argument lack merit. As has been noted, in view of the nature, subject matter, and procedure in cases before quasi-judicial agencies under their different governing laws, the periods and requirements for appeals therefrom are more stringent. (2 F.D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 525 (6th ed.,1997)) Additionally, Rule 43, �6 provides that. In addition to a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from, the petition must be accompanied by "certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to [in the petition] and other supporting papers." Thus the employment contract allegedly entered into on March 7, 1978 by petitioner's husband and the Wallem Philippines Shipping Incorporated, petitioner's claim filed in the SSS, and the decision of the SSS denying petitioner's claim are material portions of the record which must accompany the petition. Under Rule 43, �7, petitioner's failure to attach certified true copies of the same to her petition constitutes a sufficient ground for the dismissal of her petition.

Petitioner invokes social justice to excuse her noncompliance with the rules. As this Court has held, however, appeal is not a right but a mere privilege and therefore must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. (Calucag v. Commission on Elections, 274 SCRA 405 (1997))

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE