GR 230084; (August, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 230084 . August 20, 2018
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), PETITIONER, V. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINE V. PAEZ, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondent Angeline V. Paez, a PAGCOR dealer, was dismissed after a random drug test allegedly yielded a positive result for methamphetamine. She appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially affirmed her dismissal but later, in a 2012 Resolution, reversed itself and ordered her reinstatement. The CSC exonerated Paez, finding that PAGCOR failed to comply with the notice requirement under Section 38 of R.A. No. 9165 , which deprived her of the opportunity to challenge the screening result through a confirmatory test, constituting a denial of due process. PAGCOR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43.
The CA, however, encountered procedural hurdles as notices to Paez’s counsel were repeatedly returned unserved. The CA issued resolutions requiring PAGCOR to submit proof of service and to manifest the current addresses of Paez and her counsel. PAGCOR failed to comply with these directives. Although the CA later reinstated the petition after Paez voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction and again ordered PAGCOR to furnish her copies of the petition, PAGCOR once more failed to comply. Consequently, the CA issued the assailed April 27, 2016 Resolution deeming the petition abandoned and dismissing it, a dismissal it upheld in its January 3, 2017 Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed PAGCOR’s petition for review.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition before the Court was a substitute for a lost appeal. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in strict accordance with procedural rules. PAGCOR’s repeated failure to comply with the CA’s lawful orders—specifically, to provide proof of service and the correct addresses of the opposing party—warranted the dismissal of its petition for review. The Court emphasized that the negligence of counsel binds the client, and PAGCOR’s excuse of its former counsel’s heavy workload and office flooding was insufficient to exempt it from this rule.
The Court found no gross negligence on the part of counsel that would justify relaxing procedural rules. PAGCOR was given multiple opportunities to rectify its non-compliance but failed to do so. Its conduct demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards court processes. The Court reiterated that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion to set aside technical rules, especially when a party shows a consistent disregard for the Rules of Court and judicial directives. Therefore, the CA acted within its sound discretion in dismissing the petition for abandonment and failure to prosecute. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.