Case Digest: FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA v. PEDRO NOBLEZA

FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA v. PEDRO NOBLEZA

G.R. No. 144560, 13 April 2004, THIRD DIVISION

Florentino Zaragoza (Zaragoza) filed a complaint for the Termination of Leasehold Relationship against Respondent Pedro Nobleza (Nobleza). The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board ruled in favor of Nobleza. Zaragoza filed a Motion for Extension to file a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. Said Motion for Extension was granted by CA for a non-extendible period of 15 days ending on March 30, 2000. Zaragosa‘s petition for review which was filed through registered mail, however, was denied by CA for having been mailed on April 12, 2000, 13 days after March 30.

ISSUE:

Whether or not procedural rules should be applied liberally in order that Zaragoza will not be deprived of his right to use and enjoy his real property

HELD:

Since the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, the failure of Zaragoza to so perfect his appeal rendered the questioned decision final and executory. This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal is not a mere technicality as it raises a jurisdictional problem which deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Only under exceptionally meritorious circumstances may a departure from an otherwise stringent rule be allowed.

In the case at bar, there is no showing of a factual setting which warrants a liberal application of the rules on the period of appeal. Having been extended an additional fifteen (15) day period within which to file his petition for review, it was incumbent upon Zaragoza to strictly comply with such deadline. That he paid the appropriate docket fee upon filing his Motion for Extension of Time with the appellate court does not help his cause any. The inevitable consequence of his grave inadvertence is to render the DARAB‘s decision dismissing the case final and executory.