Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 16 2004.

G.R. No. 149460 (Hediara R. Rasuman vs. Secretary of Department of Transportation and Communications [DOTC], Civil Service Commission and Hon. Court of Appeals.)

Before the Court is a petition for review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals promulgated on December 22. 1999, to wit:

On October 8, 1999, the Court granted the petitioner an extension of fifteen (15) days from October 6, 1999 or until October 21, 1999 within which to file her intended petition for review. On October 21, 1999 the petitioner asked (for) another extension of ten (10) days from October 21, 1999 or until October 31, 1999[3] within which to file the petition for review. But before the Court can act on her second extension, petitioner filed her petition on November 4, 1999. Assuming, we considered the second extension, still the petition was filed four (4) days late which is beyond the extension period prayed for in petitioner's urgent ex-parte motion for extension of time filed on October 21, 1999.

As consistently held, the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.

No circumstances, therefore, exist to justify petitioner's failure in seasonably filing the petition for review.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[4]

and the Resolution dated May 21, 2000 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.[5]

Petitioner filed herein petition on the following grounds:

I. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ITS RULING DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITIES AND NOT ON THE MERITS OF THE PETITION.

II. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION BY DECIDING THE CASE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.[6]

At the outset, the herein petition must be dismissed outright. Records reveal that in a Resolution dated July 4, 2000, petitioner's second motion for reconsideration was denied outright by the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 3, Rule 9 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals;[7] that an Entry of Judgment had been issued by the Court of Appeals attesting to the fact that the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated on December 22, 1999 had become final and executory as of July 28, 2000.[8] Atty. Abdul Basar appears to have been notified thereof.[9] These contravene petitioner's claim in her petition that her counsel received the Resolution of May 23, 2000 only on August 25, 2001. The original records were subsequently remanded by the Court of Appeals to the Civil Service Commission per its covering letter dated August 27, 2001,[10] copy of which was likewise sent to Atty. Basar.[11]

On September 8, 2001, petitioner, through Atty. Basar, filed with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition for Review on Certiorari[12] without stating the foregoing facts. In a Resolution dated September 18, 2001, the Court granted the motion and on October 9, 2001, herein petition was filed.

Obviously, the Court has lost any jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the assailed Resolution of December 29, 1999 together with the Resolutions dated May 23, 2000 and July 4, 2000 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration, respectively, had become final and executory as of July 28, 2000, or more than a year prior to the filing of the motion for extension with this Court. The Motion should have been filed not later than sixty days from receipt of the Resolution dated May 21, 2000, if a petition for certiorari is to be filed on time. Petitioner cannot be allowed to undertake a procedural short-cut by the filing of a petition in this Court instead of first seeking from the Court of Appeals the setting aside of the Entry of Judgment.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is dismissed. Atty. Abdul Basar is REQUIRED to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be held in contempt of court for initiating a petition assailing the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that have long become final and executory and Entry of Judgment had been issued by said Court.

Corona, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

[1] Should be a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

[2] Penned by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole.