G.R. No. 106564 - VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. B.A. ADEFUIN-DE LA CRUZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KALOOKAN RTC, BRANCH 122, AND EDWARD L. UNITE.

Ruling

Accordingly, the Petition For Review is DENIED DUE COURSE." The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by respondent Court thru its now questioned second Resolution promulgated on July 29, 1992, thus: [10] "x x x the Court RESOLVED to DENY the instant Motion there being no compelling nor cogent reason to modify or reverse Our ruling of 29 June 1992. Additionally, movant had no right to assume that the thirty-day extension period would be granted as prayed for." Hence, this petition. The Issues Petitioner avers that respondent Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying its motion to admit its petition because: "I. The order giving petitioner a fifteen day inextendible period to file petition for review was received by petitioner when the fifteen day period had already expired. II. The respondent Court of Appeals ignored the well-settled rule that rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid, technical sense." [11] In essence, petitioner alleges that respondent Court required it to comply with an "impossible condition", in that public respondent granted the prayed-for extension for fifteen (15) days only, or up to June 4, 1992, but the Resolution embodying such extension was received by petitioner only on June 8, 1992, after the expiration of the period granted. Petitioner also pleads that the Office of the Solicitor General is saddled with a tremendous workload. It thus prays for a liberal interpretation of the rules as the petition is "impressed with public interest." [12] The Courts Ruling We are unpersuaded. There are certain procedural rules that must remain inviolable, like those setting the periods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules. [13] The rules, particularly 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. [14] Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. [15] Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case. These periods are carefully guarded and lawyers are well-advised to keep track of their applications. After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is a decision on the merits. Period of and Requisites for Extension of Time for Filing Petition for Review As early as August 26, 1986, in the case of Lacsamana vs. Second