G

SUPREME COURT CF r;:.; PHiL!PPi ..

l\epublic of tbe llbilippineg

~upreme <!Court
:fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated June 3, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244616 - Danilo V. Seva, petitioner, v. Raymond

Transportation/Si/vino Escobar/Yolanda Escobar/Raymond Escobar
and Mady Escobar-Ramirez, respondents.

The Court resolves to DENY petitioner's Urgent Motion for

Extension of Time to File the Petition for Review on Certiorari for
lack of proof of service on the Court of Appeals (CA) and adverse
party in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court and for
failure of the affiant in the affidavit of service to indicate his
identification details exhibited before the notary public.

The CA promulgated its Decision dismissing petitioner's

Petition for Certiorari on August 17, 2018. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in its Resolution of
January 22, 2019, notice of which was received by petitioner on
February 14, 2019. Counting 15 days from this receipt, the due date
to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari fell on March 1, 2019.
Petitioner, however, only filed said Petition on March 21, 2019 in
violation of Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner's
appeal was, therefore, deemed not perfected.

It must be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural

right nor 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 the law. This being so, an appealing party must comply
with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from
the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is
not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the

- over - three (3) pages ...

50

~
 RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 244616
June 3, 2019

orderly·· disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are

bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by
appellants with great fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the
whims and caprices of appellants. 1

In any event, petitioner's arguments are patently without merit.

The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the common findings of
the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the
CA that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and that he was not
entitled to his money claims. The factual finding that petitioner was
the one who voluntarily severed his employment with respondents by
not signing a new employment contract as mandated by Department
of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 118-12 is supported
by substantial evidence. We accord not only respect, but even
finality, to the factual findings and evaluation of evidence of the labor
tribunals, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition

for Review on Certiorari.

Petitioner's Manifestation and Compliance submitting the

compact disc containing the soft copy of the Petition for Review on
Certiorari and its annexes is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

Division Clerk of Cou~•r""

50

FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS Court of Appeals (x)

(FFW LEGAL CENTER) Manila
Counsel for Petitioner (CA-G.R. SP No. 145164)
3/F FFW Building, 1943 Taft Avenue
Malate, 1004 Manila GUTIERREZ & NITURA
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Respondents
G/F Richardson Steel Corp. Building
No. 668 Quirino Hi-way, Brgy. Bagbag
Novaliches, 1123 Quezon City

- over -
1
Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).

~
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 244616
June 3, 2019

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION
PPSTA Building, Banawe Street
1100 Quezon City
(NLRC LAC No. 08-002075-15)
(NLRC Case No. NCR-04-04680-14)

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Judgment Division (x) ' .

Supreme Court ~

50

UR