Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83025:57007&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:02:58+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 183239, June 02, 2014 - GREGORIO DE LEON, DOING BUSINESS AS G.D.L. MARKETING, Petitioner, v. HERCULES AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND/OR JESUS CHUA AND RUMI RUNGIS MILK., Respondents.
GREGORIO DE LEON, DOING BUSINESS AS G.D.L. MARKETING, Petitioner, v. HERCULES AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND/OR JESUS CHUA AND RUMI RUNGIS MILK., Respondents.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which assails the Resolution1 dated January 7, 2008 and the Resolution2 dated June 2, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87212.
Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila an action for breach of contract with damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against respondent Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, represented by Jesus Chua, and respondent Rumi Rungis Milk. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 98-89938 and was raffled off to Branch 20.
4. P6,358.40 representing payment for the analysis of the delivered milk and the milk sample.
The case against defendants Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua are hereby DISMISSED for want of evidence. The counterclaims of defendants Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation and Jesus Chua is hereby DISMISSED absent concrete evidence to support it.
On October 19, 2005, petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion for Time,5 asking for an additional period of 10 days from October 19, 2005 to file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner, subsequently, filed on October 24, 2005 his Motion for Partial Reconsideration6 of the September 23, 2005 decision. In an Order7 dated October 27, 2005, the RTC denied the Motion for Time, as the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.
On November 2, 2005, respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed its Motion for Reconsideration8 of the September 23, 2005 decision and to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines. On January 9, 2006, the RTC issued its Order 9 denying respondent Rumi Rungis Milk's motion for reconsideration.
On February 13, 2006, petitioner filed a Notice of Partial Appeal10 from the Order dated January 9, 2006.
On February 15, 2006, the RTC issued an Order11 which stated that petitioner's notice of partial appeal cannot be given due course as the same had been filed beyond the reglementary period to appeal. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Supplement to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Reply to respondent's comment.
Earlier, on February 13, 2006, petitioner also moved for partial execution12 of the RTC Decision dated September 23, 2005. The RTC denied the motion, since the case against respondent Rumi Rungis Milk was not yet final and executory as its notice of appeal13 had been timely filed. Petitioner’s partial reconsideration was denied in an Order14 dated June 1, 2006 for failure of petitioner or counsel to appear on the date the motion was set for hearing. Petitioner had also filed a Notice of Appeal15 of the June 1, 2006 Order.
On November 16, 2006, petitioner received a notice16 from the CA requiring him to file appellant's brief which he did on December 28, 2006.17 On the other hand, respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed a motion for extension of time to file its appellant’s brief, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated March 15, 2007.
Respondent Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation filed a Motion18 to strike out or dismiss petitioner's appeal and motion for leave of court to lift the amended order of attachment and release the properties in custodia legis. Petitioner filed his Opposition thereto with motion for refund of overpayment of fees.
On January 7, 2008, the CA issued its first assailed Resolution, which ordered petitioner’s brief stricken off the records and dismissing the appeal.
In so ruling, the CA found that the appeal could not be legally entertained, since it was filed out of time and denied due course by the RTC. With regards to petitioner’s contention of overpayment of appeal and docket fees, his claim of refund should be referred to the Chief Justice through the Court Administrator, pursuant to A.M. No. 05-9-256-MeTC dated October 12, 2005. Respondent’s Motion to Lift the Amended Order of Attachment dated September 25, 2000 and release the properties in custodia legis should be filed before the trial court. Leave of court to file said motion is, therefore, denied.
The CA also ordered the Appellant's Brief dated March 5, 2007, filed by respondent Rumi Rungis Milk, expunged from the records taking into account the Resolution promulgated on March 15, 2007 denying respondent Rumi Rungis Milk's motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief and dismissing its appeal.
Both petitioner and respondent Rumi Rungis Milk filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its second assailed Resolution dated June 2, 2008.
Hence, this petition filed by petitioner.
The issue for resolution is whether the CA erred when it ordered petitioner's appellant's brief filed with it be stricken off the records.
The records show that the RTC Decision dated September 23, 2005 was received by petitioner on October 4, 2005; thus, he had until October 19, 2005 within which to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner, however, filed on October 19, 2005 a motion for time praying for an additional 10 days or until October 29, 2005 to file his motion for partial reconsideration. The RTC denied the motion to which we agree, since such motion is a transgression of the mandatory prohibition on the filing of a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration.
It has, likewise, been explicitly stated in Section 2, Rule 40 and Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that in appeals from municipal trial courts or regional trial courts, no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
As the period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period to appeal; thus, petitioner had already lost his right to appeal the September 23, 2005 decision. As such, the RTC decision became final as to petitioner when no appeal was perfected after the lapse of the prescribed period.
We find the arguments devoid of merit.
The Seventh Day Adventist Conference Church of Southern Philippines, Inc. case cited by petitioner has no application in this case, since the former did not deal with the issue on the period to appeal as herein discussed.
Petitioner's insistence that the RTC Order dated February 15, 2006 denying due course to his notice of partial appeal had not attained finality, because of the RTC's failure to rule on his motion of reconsideration therefrom, is not meritorious. It has already been established that as early as October 19, 2005, the reglementary period within which petitioner could appeal the September 23, 2005 decision had already lapsed. Petitioner, therefore, has no more right to file a notice of partial appeal from the January 9, 2006 Order which denied respondent Rumi Rungi Milk's motion for reconsideration of the September 23, 2005 decision.
Petitioner argues that jurisprudence is replete with instances wherein an expressly non-extendible period for filing a pleading was nevertheless extended.
While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice. x x x. The desired leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for such a procedural lapse. x x x.
Petitioner's plea that the rules be not strictly applied so that the ends of justice will be served is not meritorious. We found that petitioner had not shown any satisfactory reason which would merit the relaxation of the rules. Petitioner moved for motion of time to file his motion for partial reconsideration alleging heavy volume of work and the need to attend to other urgent matters in other equally urgent cases, which we cannot consider as exceptional circumstances to justify the non-observance of the rules of procedure.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Resolutions dated January 7, 2008 and June 2, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin,* Villarama, Jr.,** and Leonen, JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per Raffle dated July 12, 2010.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associated Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court), concurring; rollo, pp. 62-64.
3 Id. at 77-107; Per Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali.
19 226 Phil. 144 (1986).
20Habaluyas, Inc. v. Japson, supra, at 148.
21 271 Phil. 40 (1991).
22 Rolloque, v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 50.
23Prieto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158597, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 371, 377.
24Spouses Batingal v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 780, 789 (2001).
26 528 Phil. 647 (2006).
27Ram’s Studio and Photographic Equipment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 542, 548-549 (2000).
28 G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 643.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.