Ozaeta v. People (G.R. No. 233014. Nov., 20, 2017)
CASE DIGEST: [G.R. No. 233014, November 20, 2017]. WALTER D. OZAETA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
FACTS: It appears that on July 31, 2017, Walter D. Ozaeta (petitioner) received a copy of the July 20, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying his Motion for Reconsideration of its June 6, 2017 Resolution, which denied for lack of merit his application for issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction in his Petition for certiorari. Under the Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order of denial or until August 15, 2017 within which to appeal to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. When petitioner's motion for a fifteen (15)-day extension of time to file said petition was granted, he had until August 30, 2017 within which to file said Petition. However, he filed the Petition only on August 31, 2017 or one day beyond the reglementary period. As such, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals had attained finality and could no longer be assailed. Consequently, the present Petition must be dismissed for late filing.
Moreover, we note that while the petition is captioned "Petition for Review on Certiorari" it contains a prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction, restraining in the meantime the execution of the Warrant of Arrest dated November 29, 2016 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 12 in Criminal Case No. 08-0797-2015. Thus, the payment of only P3,530.00 as legal fees by petitioner on August 15, 2017 did not include the amount of P1,000.00 for the prayer for temporary restraining order and P200.00 as deposit for sheriff's fee. Rule 46, Section 3 and Rule 56, Sections 3 and 5 provide that failure to pay docket and other lawful fees is sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.
HELD: The Supreme Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for late filing and non-payment of correct legal fees.
Moreover, we note that while the petition is captioned "Petition for Review on Certiorari" it contains a prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction, restraining in the meantime the execution of the Warrant of Arrest dated November 29, 2016 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 12 in Criminal Case No. 08-0797-2015. Thus, the payment of only P3,530.00 as legal fees by petitioner on August 15, 2017 did not include the amount of P1,000.00 for the prayer for temporary restraining order and P200.00 as deposit for sheriff's fee. Rule 46, Section 3 and Rule 56, Sections 3 and 5 provide that failure to pay docket and other lawful fees is sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.
HELD: The Supreme Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for late filing and non-payment of correct legal fees.
