G.R. No. 194061 - EMELIE L. BESAGA, VS. SPOUSES FELIPE ACOSTA AND LUZVIMINDA ACOSTA AND DIGNA MATALANG COCHING.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly review the cited cases to determine the correctness of the petitioner's submitted position. In Asian Spirit Airlines v. Bautista , [23] the CA dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to file his brief within the time provided by the Rules of Court. The appellant not only neglected to file its brief within the stipulated time but also failed to seek an extension of time based on a cogent ground before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. In sustaining the CA, we held that liberality in the application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of justice. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, [24] we affirmed the trial court when it considered a motion for reconsideration pro forma for not containing a notice of hearing. We held that a motion that does not contain the requisite notice of hearing is nothing but a mere scrap of paper. The clerk of court does not even have the duty to accept it, much less to bring it to the attention of the presiding judge. In Videogram Regulatory Board v. CA , [25] the Regional Trial Court granted the petitioner a non-extendible 15-day period to file a Petition for Review from the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court. The petitioner failed to file the petition despite the extension. We held that the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. In MC Engineering, Inc. v. NLRC, [26] we affirm the CA when it denied due course to the petitioner's appeal because of its failure to explain why another mode of service other than personal service was resorted to. We held that an affidavit of service is required merely as proof that service has been made to the other parties in a case. It is a requirement totally different from the requirement that an explanation be made if personal service of pleadings was not resorted to. Finally, in Artistica Ceramica v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc. , [27] the issue was whether the petitioner properly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We held that as a rule, the remedy from a judgment or final order of the CA is appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The failure to file the appeal within the 15-day reglementary period under Rule 45 is not an excuse to use Rule 65. Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal, In sum, all these cases strictly applied the rule that the right to appeal is a mere statutory right and the party who avails of such right must comply with the law. Otherwise, the right to appeal is lost. To reiterate, these involved violations of the Rules of Court while the cases were pending in the trial court, the CA or before this Court. They do