G.R. NO. 167471 - GLICERIA SARMIENTO, VS. EMERITA ZARATAN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently established her causes against the defendant and hereby order the defendant and all persons claiming rights under her: to pay plaintiff the monthly rentals of P3,500.00 for the said premises from August 1, 2002 until defendant vacates the premises; to pay plaintiff the sum of P20,000.00 plus P1,500.00 per appearance of counsel in court, as and for attorney's fees; and to pay the cost of suit. [3] Respondent filed her notice of appeal. [4] Thereafter, the case was raffled to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 223, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-03-49437. In the Notice of Appealed Case, [5] the RTC directed respondent to submit her memorandum in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court and petitioner to file a reply memorandum within 15 days from receipt. Respondent's counsel having received the notice on 19 May 2003, he had until 3 June 2003 within which to file the requisite memorandum. But on 3 June 2003, he filed a Motion for Extension of Time of five days due to his failure to finish the draft of the said Memorandum. He cited as reasons for the delay of filing his illness for one week, lack of staff to do the work due to storm and flood compounded by the grounding of the computers because the wirings got wet. [6] But the motion remained unacted. On 9 June 2003, respondent filed her Memorandum. On 19 June 2003, the RTC dismissed the appeal as follows: Record shows that defendant-appellant received the Notice of Appealed Case, through counsel, on May 19, 2003 (Registry Return Receipt dated May 12, 2003, Record, back of p. 298). Thus, under Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, she had fifteen (15) days or until June 3, 2003 within which to submit a memorandum on appeal. As further appears on record, however, the required Memorandum was filed by defendant-appellant only on June 9, 2003 (Record, p. 623), or six (6) days beyond the expiration of the aforesaid fifteen day period. It should be stressed that while the rules should be liberally construed, the provisions on reglemenatry periods are strictly applied as they are "deemed indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business" (Legaspi-Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60577, October 11, 1983) and strict compliance therewith is mandatory and imperative (FJR Garments Industries vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49329, June 29, 1984). The same is true with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals (Gutierrez vs. Court of Appeals, L-25972, November 26, 1968). Premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. This renders academic defendant-appellant's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. [7] On the basis of the above-quoted Order, petitioner filed a Motion for Immediate Execution, [8] while respondent moved for the Reconsideration. [9] Both motions were denied b