KALAYAAN DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE TRANSPORT SERVICES (COOPERATIVE FOR SHORT), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER/PRESIDENT & CEO MR. GEROLIN E. PIEDAD FOR AND IN BEHALF OF ITS ME…
BARZA, R. F., J.:
In view of the defects in the petition, this Court could not take any further action thus, the Resolution[1] dated August 15, 2014, was issued requiring the petitioners to rectify the defects noted in the petition.
Petitioners on August 22, 2014 filed a Motion for Extension to File Pleadings until August 30, 2014 which was granted in the Minute Resolution dated September 1, 2014.[2] Petitioners did not file the pleadings within the period prayed for and instead, they filed on September 1, 2014, a Motion for Additional Extension of Time to File Pleading.[3]
On September 4, 2014, petitioners filed their Manifestation/Compliance.[4] On November 11, 2014, petitioners filed a Manifestation with Motion to Resolve Pending Incident/s.
The petition is dismissed.
Petitioners were already given an extension until August 30, 2014 to file the required pleadings but instead of complying with the resolution of the Court, they sought for another extension to file the same. It must be noted that the Motion for Additional Extension of Time to File Pleading was filed on September 1, 2014, which was already beyond the period granted by the Court. Clearly, said motion was belatedly filed.
Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[5]
For failure of the petitioners to file the pleadings within the period granted by this Court,
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid, H. S., (Chairperson), and Cruz, R. A., JJ., concur.
[1] pp. 87-91, rollo.
[2] p. 95, rollo.
[3] pp. 96-97, rollo.
[4] pp. 99-101, rollo.
[5] Juanito Magsino vs Elena De Ocampo, et al., G.R. No. 166944, August 18, 2014.