ENGR. JAMES STEPHEN CARPE AND ANTONIO BACCAY, PETITIONERS, VS. SALAHUDDIN M. SERAD, ASSISTANT REGIONAL PROSECUTOR AND/OR MARANAO C. DANGANAN, REGIONAL PROSECUTOR, REGIONAL PROSE…

Before Us is petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration^[1] of this Court’s Decision dated August 13, 2014,^[2] declaring that the Letter-Resolution dated May 9, 2011 of Assistant Regional Prosecutor Salahuddin M. Serad as approved by Regional Prosecutor Maranao Danganan has long become final and executory.

In their motion, petitioners argue that this Court dismissed the petition based on technicalities or the very strict and rigid application of the rules of procedure instead of giving more weight to and appreciation of their substantive rights.

The motion of petitioners fails to convince this Court to reverse its Decision.   While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it must be emphasized that procedural rules should not likewise be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might result in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons.^[3]

In this case, no persuasive reason was offered by petitioners for why their petition for certiorari was filed 6 months and 21 days after their receipt of the assailed Letter-Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration.  Certainly, even if petitioners seek “liberality”, half a year far exceeds the measure and borders on abuse.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners is DENIED for lack of merit and this Court’s Decision dated August 13, 2014 stands unreconsidered.

SO ORDERED.

Borja, (Chairperson), and Badelles, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 211-218.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 201-207.

^[3] Colegio de San Juan de Letran v. Dela Rosa-Meris, G.R. No. 178837, September 1, 2014.