Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Uploads PDF 198 SP 08225-Min 08102017 PDF

    Uploaded by

    viktor samuel fontanilla
    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing a petition for review filed by petitioners Spouses Kalbi and Imelda Dalus. The resolution noted that the petition failed to (1) allege the material dates showing the timely filing of the petition, including the date of receipt of the lower court's resolution and the date a motion for reconsideration was filed; and (2) pay the full docket fees. As such, the petition did not comply with the requirements of the rules, which is sufficient ground for dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Uploads PDF 198 SP 08225-Min 08102017 PDF

    Uploaded by

    viktor samuel fontanilla
    98 views3 pages
    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing a petition for review filed by petitioners Spouses Kalbi and Imelda Dalus. The resolution noted that the petition failed to (1) allege the material dates showing the timely filing of the petition, including the date of receipt of the lower court's resolution and the date a motion for reconsideration was filed; and (2) pay the full docket fees. As such, the petition did not comply with the requirements of the rules, which is sufficient ground for dismissal.

    Original Title

    _UPLOADS_PDF_198_SP__08225-MIN_08102017 (1).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing a petition for review filed by petitioners Spouses Kalbi and Imelda Dalus. The resolution noted that the petition failed to (1) allege the material dates showing the timely filing of the petition, including the date of receipt of the lower court's resolution and the date a motion for reconsideration was filed; and (2) pay the full docket fees. As such, the petition did not comply with the requirements of the rules, which is sufficient ground for dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    98 views3 pages

    Uploads PDF 198 SP 08225-Min 08102017 PDF

    Uploaded by

    viktor samuel fontanilla
    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing a petition for review filed by petitioners Spouses Kalbi and Imelda Dalus. The resolution noted that the petition failed to (1) allege the material dates showing the timely filing of the petition, including the date of receipt of the lower court's resolution and the date a motion for reconsideration was filed; and (2) pay the full docket fees. As such, the petition did not comply with the requirements of the rules, which is sufficient ground for dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    Court of Appeals
    Cagayan de Oro City

    SPECIAL TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION

    SPOUSES KALBI AND IMELDA DALUS, CA-G.R. SP NO. 08225-MIN


    Petitioners,
    Members:

    LLOREN, J., CH.,


    ATAL-PAÑO &
    -versus- *
    ACOSTA, JJ.

    Promulgated:
    SPOUSES KADRA AND ALMA MASIHUL
    AND LUCITA YAMONGAN,
    Respondents.
    AUGUST 10, 2017

    RESOLUTION

    ATAL-PAÑO, J.:

    Before this Court is a Petition for Review 1 under Rule 42 of the


    Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions 2 respectively dated
    September 20, 2016 and July 6, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
    9th Judicial Region, Branch 16, Zamboanga City.

    A perusal of the instant petition, however, reveals that petitioners


    failed to allege material dates showing the timeliness of its filing, to wit:
    (a) the date of receipt of the September 20, 2016 Resolution and (b) the
    date of filing a motion for reconsideration thereto, required under
    Rule 42, Section 2 of the Rules of Court which provides:

    *
    Acting Junior Member, per Office Order No. 01-17-RSF dated July 17, 2017.
    1
    Rollo, pp. 3-23.
    2
    Id., pp. 65-68 and pp. 69-74.
    CA-G.R. SP NO. 08225-MIN Page 2 of 3
    Resolution

    “Section 2. Form and contents. — The


    petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with
    the original copy intended for the court being
    indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state
    the full names of the parties to the case, without
    impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either
    as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the
    specific material dates showing that it was filed on
    time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the
    matters involved, the issues raised, the specification
    of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed
    by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or
    arguments relied upon for the allowance of the
    appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible
    duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or
    final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by
    the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the
    requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the
    pleadings and other material portions of the record as
    would support the allegations of the petition.

    xxx x x x” (emphasis supplied)

    Under Section 3 of the same Rule, the failure of the petitioner to


    comply with any of the foregoing requirements including the payment of
    docket fees, which in this case is short of P530.00, 3 shall be sufficient
    ground for the dismissal of the petition.

    It is settled that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed


    period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such
    payment, the appeal is not perfected.4

    The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component


    of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised
    only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 5 A
    party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the
    requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably
    lost.6

    3
    Id., p. 1.
    4
    Gipa, et. al., v. Southern Luzon Institute, G.R. No. 177425, June 18, 2014, citing Gonzales v. Pe,
    G.R. No. 167398, August 8, 2011, 655 SCRA 176.
    5
    Toletino-Prieto v. Elvas, G.R. No. 192369, November 09, 2016, citing Boardwalk Business Ventures.
    Inc. v. Villareal, Jr., G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013.
    CA-G.R. SP NO. 08225-MIN Page 3 of 3
    Resolution

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby


    DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

    (Original Signed)
    PERPETUA T. ATAL-PAÑO
    Associate Justice

    WE CONCUR:

    (ORIGINAL SIGNED)
    (Original Signed)
    LOUIS P. ACOSTA
    EDGARDO T. LLOREN Associate Justice
    Associate Justice

    6
    Manila Mining Corporation v. Amor, et. al., G.R. No. 182800, April 20, 2015, citing Philux, Inc.,
    et al., v. NLRC, 586 Phil. 19, 26 (2008).

    You might also like