ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[UDK-13455.� March 2, 2005]
ALINABON vs. RAMOS CONST.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 2 2005.
UDK-13455 (Arnel Alinabon, et al., vs. P.P. Ramos Construction and General Services, Inc., and Proceso P. Ramos.)
On January 10, 2005, petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision [1] cralaw and resolution [2] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81792.
Previously, however, we denied the petitioners' first motion for
extension of time to file the petition
[3]
cralaw
for their failure to pay the docket and other legal fees, and to make a deposit
for costs as required by Sec. 2, Rule 45
[4]
cralaw
in relation to Sec. 5(c), Rule 56
[5]
cralaw
of the Rules of Court. We also denied their urgent ex-parte motion to litigate
as indigents because it lacked the requirements in Sec. 18, Rule 141. No
affidavit was attached to the motion, stating that: (a) their gross income did
not exceed P4,000 a month, if residing in Metro Manila, and P3,000
a month if residing outside Metro Manila, and (b) they did not own real
property with an assessed value of more than P50,000. An affidavit of a
disinterested person attesting to the truth of petitioner's affidavit was also
not attached.
Before us now are several motions filed by petitioners, viz.: (a) ex-parte urgent motion to admit second motion for extension to file petition for review on certiorari and to litigate as indigent litigants; (b) ex-parte second urgent motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari and to litigate as indigent litigants; (c) urgent motion to admit petition for review on certiorari and manifestation to litigate as indigent litigants; and (d) the aforesaid petition for review on certiorari.
Pursuant to Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the specified requirements shall be entertained. Here, petitioner's first motion for extension was denied because they failed to comply with the required docket and other legal fees, and to make a deposit for costs within the reglementary period. Petitioners sought to justify the non�payment with the claim that they were indigent litigants. However, their motion to litigate as indigents had already been denied for failure to comply with Sec. 18, Rule 141. Petitioners still failed to attach any proof of their indigency to their subsequent motions.
In Galen v. Paguirigan, [6] cralaw we reiterated the rule that a party cannot presume that his motion for extension will be granted. The Court may only grant an extension if the party seeking it is able to provide a justifiable reason for such grant. Considering that petitioners failed to prove that they were indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees, the motion for extension filed without payment of the fees was properly denied.
Sec. 2, Rule 45 is very clear:
x x x On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other legal fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition, (emphasis ours)
While litigation is not a game of technicalities and the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random. Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons. [7] cralaw
Strict compliance with the provisions on reglementary periods is mandatory and imperative. This is indispensable to prevent needless delays and is necessary for the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. [8] cralaw We will therefore not bend our rules to grant an extension despite non-payment of legal fees and/or grant an extension of more than 30 days simply to accommodate petitioners' unsupported claim that they are indigents. After all, a party invoking a liberal application of the rules should first exert all efforts to comply with it. Consequently, the petition for review submitted on January 10, 2005 is deemed filed late.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for having been posted out of time.
Accordingly, the pending (a) ex-parte urgent motion to admit second motion for extension to file petition for review on certiorari and to litigate as indigent litigants; (b) ex-parte second urgent motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari and to litigate as indigent litigants; and (c) urgent motion to admit petition for review on certiorari and manifestation to litigate as indigent litigants are all noted without action.
Let this case be declared closed and terminated. Inform the parties accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin of the Sixteenth Division; Rollo, pp. 30-46.
[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin of the Former Sixteenth Division; Rollo, pp. 47-49.
[3] cralaw Dated December 9, 2004.
[4] cralaw Sec. 2, Rule 45. Time for filing; extension. - The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.
[5] cralaw Sec. 5, Rule 56. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - The appeal may be dismissed motu propio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds: x x x (c) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs; x x x.
[6] cralaw 428 Phil. 590 (2002).
[7] cralaw Sea Power Shipping Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603 (2001).
[8] cralaw Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 7 Revised Edition, p. 64, citing cases.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
