Tessie A. Fernandez Vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, Twenty-Third Divsion, Cagayan De Oro City and Salvio F. Arguelles G.R. No. 233460. February 19, 2020

Tessie A. Fernandez Vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, Twenty-Third Divsion, Cagayan De Oro City and Salvio F. Arguelles

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11881/

Inting

Issues
Hence, the present Petition for Certiorari submitting the following issues for resolution: I. WHETHER OR NOT [THE CA] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVERSING THE RULINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, THEREBY AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT. II. WHETHER OR NOT [THE CA] COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING PRIVATE RESPONDENT WITH ATTORNEY'S FEES.
 * The Court reminds petitioner, as it has consistently reminded countless other litigants, that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion that automatically compels the Court to set aside technical rules. A petition for certiorari under Rule 45 must be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution appealed from; or of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. In this case, petitioner received the CA Resolution denying her motion for reconsideration on June 19, 2017 and filed the instant petition 46 days later or on August 4, 2017, by which time she had already lost her appeal under Rule 45.


 * Time and again, we have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with.

Decisions
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated December 12, 2016 and the Resolution dated May 25, 2017 issued by the Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 06654-MIN are AFFIRMED.