G.R. No. 230084 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), V. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINE V. PAEZ.

Ruling

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition. PAGCOR moved for reconsideration of this resolution, which the CA denied in its January 3, 2017 resolution. Hence, this petition, anchored on the ground that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it rendered the April 27, 2016 and January 3, 2017 resolutions. PAGCOR argues that its failure to comply with the CA's October 22, 2015 resolution was unintentional. It was merely due to the heavy workload of its former counsel, as well as the effect of the recurring water intrusion/leakage in its offices due to bursting of the PAGCOR FCU Chilled Water. This outpour of water soaked and damaged the computers, case files, confidential documents and other materials belonging to the lawyers. Further, PAGCOR argues that the gross negligence of its former handling lawyer should not bind it as it would be tantamount to a deprivation of its right to due process and to be rightfully heard on the merits of the case. In her Comment/Opposition, [11] dated July 22, 2017, respondent alleges that PAGCOR failed to demonstrate a highly meritorious ground for the relaxation of the rules of procedure in its favor. Thus, the CA rightfully dismissed the action. In its Reply, [12] dated March 14, 2018, PAGCOR insists that its former counsel's negligence was so gross that it should not be bound thereby. Otherwise, it would amount to a deprivation of due process. ISSUE WHETHER THE CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF PAGCOR. The Court's Ruling The petition is devoid of merit. PAGCOR comes before this Court seeking exemption from the general rule that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. [13] However, PAGCOR's disregard for technical procedure is made manifest by the fact that the instant petition is a substitute for a lost appeal. Further, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition for review before it. The instant petition is a substitute for a lost appeal. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the ROC. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. [14] Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the ROC, the proper remedy to question the CAs judgment, final order or resolution, as in the present case, is an appeal by certiorari . The petition must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution appealed from; or of the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. [15] PAGCOR received the January 3, 2017 resolution of the CA denying its motion for reconsider