ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 148921. June 26, 2006]

SPOUSES RAMOS BERIARMENTE AND NILDA BERIARMENTE, PETITIONERS, versus NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 26, 2006

G.R. No. 148921 (Spouses Ramos Beriarmente and Nilda Beriarmente, Petitioners, versus National Power Corporation, Respondent.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to reverse the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (Twelfth Division), dated February 20, and May 29, 2001, in CA-G.R. SP No. 62339.

The National Power Corporation (NPC), respondent, is the registered owner of a lot located within the Angat Watershed Reservation.

Sometime in June 1997, spouses Ramos and Nilda Beriarmente, petitioners, entered the lot and proceeded to construct a building thereon. Thereupon, the NPC demanded that they vacate the property, but they refused to do so.

On September 24, 1997, the NPC filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Angat-Norzagaray, Bulacan, a complaint for forcible entry against spouses Beriarmente, docketed as Civil Case No. 852.

On July 8, 1999, the MCTC rendered its Decision dismissing the complaint.

Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Malolos, Bulacan, issued a Decision reversing the MCTC judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Spouses Beriarmente then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62339.

In its Resolution dated February 20, 2001, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy. What they should have filed is a petition for review pursuant to Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Treating the petition as a petition for review, the Court of Appeals likewise found that petitioners failed to attach thereto copies of the pleadings filed with the RTC and a certified true copy of the MCTC Decision as required by Section 2, of the same Rules.

The petitioners seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated May 29, 2001.

Hence, the instant petition.

Section 5, paragraph (h), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, specifically provides that appeals to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review.

Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the same Rules provides that the petition should 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 RTC, the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and of the pleadings and other material portions of the records as would support the allegations of the petition.

Section 3 of the same Rule 42 further mandates:

Sec. 3. 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 fee and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. Rules of procedure are required to be followed, except only when for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. ^[1] cralaw

While we have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause - free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities, however, equally settled is the rule that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. ^[2] cralaw

In the case at bar, the petitioners did not give persuasive reason to warrant their exemption from the strict application of the Rules.

In sum, we find no reversible error committed by the Appellate Court.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62339 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDlCHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Ortiz v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 127393, December 4, 1998, 299 SCRA 708.

^[2] cralaw Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 148287, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 286; Wilson Go and Peter Go v. Anita Roco, G.R. No. 140862, April 25, 2006 .

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011