SPS. EDGARDO P. PATANA AND SUSAN D. PATANA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10, DAVAO CITY, LIWAYWAY ALOPIJAN, RAMON ALOPIJAN, ROM…
BORJA, J.,:
Consequently, on June 6, 2014, the Court directed anew the petitioners to serve the private respondents a copy of the motion for reconsideration within five (5) days from notice and to submit proof of service thereof to this Court within the same period. Private respondents, in turn, were directed to file a Comment on the motion for reconsideration within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. In addition, petitioners and their counsel were directed to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s October 4, 2014 Resolution. The Court had warned petitioners that it would “deny outright the motion for reconsideration if there is no compliance with Sections 4, 7 and 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules.”
Per the Court’s Case Management Information System (CA-CMIS) report as of October 27, 2014, no compliance was filed by petitioners on record.
In view thereof, the Court is constrained to DENY the motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with the Court’s order.
Petitioners must realize that reglementary periods, whether under the Rules or as required by the Court, are to be strictly observed for being indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for the orderly discharge of judicial business. Veering away from these rigid technicalities of procedure in favor of liberal interpretation of the rules on appeal or in certiorari has always been lauded by this Court. Which is why, in several instances, the Court had been lenient and allowed parties, despite belated compliance, to file the required pleadings and serve a copy thereof to the opposing parties, and to submit a proof of service thereof to this Court. However, it is equally true that an orderly and speedy administration of justice cannot be achieved without faithful adherence to the procedures.[1]
The Court differs to apply liberality here because petitioners adamantly refused to serve private respondents a copy of the motion for reconsideration and to submit a proof of service thereof to this Court, when required on two (2) earlier occasions. Indeed, it was petitioners themselves who have given ground for outright denial of their motion for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s Resolution of June 6, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Badelles, and Singh, JJ., concur.
[1] See Fernando v. Santamaria, et al., G.R. No. 160730, December 10, 2004