JAIME ROBLES' VAIN ATTEMPT TO PERFECT HIS RECORD ON APPEAL TERMINATED AND DECLARED REMOVED FROM THE ROSTER OF PENDING CA CASES, THE COURT OF APPEALS ADMITTING THEY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE

      I recently scanned the website of the Court of Appeals and lo and behold! I got hold of a new Resolution, which has already become final and executory.  Mr. Henry Rodriguez was never given a copy of such petition for appeal, which was obviously a continuation of Jaime Robles' vain attempt to perfect his appeal by filing a Record on Appeal which had been denied since way back November 22, 1999 by the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City after the RTC Amended Decision of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 was issued on August 13, 1999.  This new petition for appeal of Jaime Robles was DENIED by the Court of Appeals when the Honorable Appellate Court declared that they (the Court of Appeals) HAD NOT ATTAINED JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE.

      The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.100650 Resolution dated July 19, 2013 declared:

     "The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and should be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. The statutory nature of the right to appeal requires the one who avails himself of it to strictly comply with the statutes or rules that are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. In the absence of highly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, like when the loftier demands of substantial justice and equity require the relaxation, or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues, such statutes or rules should remain inviolable.

      In like manner, the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, because the failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court causes the judgment or final order to become final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment or final order. The failure of the movant-appellant and his counsel to file their record on appeal on time rendered the orders of the RTC final and unappealable. Thereby, this Court has lost the jurisdiction to review the challenged orders, and movant-appellant is precluded from assailing the orders.

      

      WHEREFORE, considering that this Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the instant Appeal, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

      Let the records of CA-G.R. CV No. 100650 be dropped from the list of pending cases before this Court.

      SO ORDERED."

    

    

      The dispositive portion of the above Court of Appeals Resolution dated July 19, 2013, declaring that the Honorable Appellate Court had NO JURISDICTION over the Record of Appeal of movant-appellant Jaime Robles was clearly in consonance with the Supreme Court Decision dated June 22, 2011 in G.R. No. 182645- "In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. - Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles," the portion which discussed the rule of immutability of finality of judgments, and categorized the RTC Amended Decision dated August 13, 1999 as immutable and was unlike the previous Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.No.SP57417 dated April 16, 2002 of the same titled case filed by the same movant-appellant Jaime Robles, the previous CA ruling categorized as a VOID JUDGMENT by the Supreme Court since the appellate LACKED OR HAD NO JURISDICTION over the Amended Decision of the RTC instant case.

      With the Court of Appeals admitting that they had no jurisdiction over the above captioned case, and the Supreme Court describing the RTC Amended Decision having lapsed into finality and was categorized as immutable judgment, the present Presiding Judge of RTC Iriga City CANNOT USE ANYMORE the February 21, 2007 Order which previously implemented the April 16, 2002 void CA Decision, both having been declared nullified by the Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision.  The RTC judge's role in the above mentioned RTC case is now clearly MINISTERIAL in the implementation and execution of the aforesaid RTC AMENDED DECISION.