‘ar ee icin Gard wn wi i iim crit leditienk Marion P. Bosantog REPUBLIC OF THE. PHILIPPINES, represented by the tment of Public Works and H), Plaintiff: Appellant, | | versus = i} ||} Spouses FELICIANO: 1 FRANCISCO and FLORDELIZA M. Banciso, Defendants- Appellees. tL alte Sir/Madam: } attached, was rendered by the FOR above-entitled case, the ‘You are hereby required to inform this date when you received this notice and copy of the Copy furnished: Office of the Solicitor nea reg, w/c (for plaintifF-appeilamty 134 Amorsolo St, Legaspl Vilage 1229 Makati City ‘Atty, Napoleon F, Segundera, Jf - reg. w/ ro (for defendant-appelee) |) ANDEZA & SEGUNDERA LAW OFFICE Room 307, Golden Sun Bidz. Il No. 29 Mindanao Ave, Brgy. Pag-asa 1100 Quezon City | ‘The Hon. Presiding Judge — reg. w/ re RTC-Branch 269 1440 Valenzuela City abu | ao er the ara ear i I of which is on file in this office. ON, a copy of which is hereto fof the Court of Appeals In the days from receipt hereof of the | | Very thuly yours, | Cee Manriez | Clerk of'Court within five (5) solution.Forurr Six F THI rep! ase th TP iblic Woi i an Plainitl- Appeltam, REPUBLIC, PHILIPPIN Department Highways ( FV NO. 105757 | CHAIRPERSON, GALIACOB, AT. 1 Spouses ELICIANO. | FRANCISCt I FLORDELL 19 JAN noe, y M. FRANCIS fenduntsAppellees: RESOL TION AZCARRAGA-JACOB, J. On 26 July|2016, a Resolution! was issied Hy the Court dismissing the instant appeallonlthe glound of failuyH to file an pellan’s brief with the extended peria Rollo. p. 29-40On 24 fideration® was filed by appellant Office stating that prior tq the receipt of the led a Manifestation\and Motion for Lek for Plaintiff-Appellant on 11 Augus its Appellant's Brief “in | the interest of sul festation and Motion for Appellant’ was Filed on 8 August 2016. Contrary to Leave of Couit ta) 11 August 2016. Setting | no merit in the ingtant Motion for ee The OSt 5 appeal on the bass of the follow ina Twas) ht and inadvertence. the recon 6 by/the administrative staff. and the among those filed on |) May 18, 201 } I is it issue in this case is imbued wil ft seeks 10 avoid the pending Jos valuation of the just compensation fated for a national goverment ied) d to file its Brief on 18 5 receipt of the Caurt's moved for an extension i] 18 April 2016, within jay extension through a February 2016, Notice to File) Bi of sixty (60) ¢aj which to. its Tid. pp, 63.06, thi p til 1 tipGR CVNO 109797 prayed for in its Re further extensi¢ The petiod Almost another ignored the warni extension prayed Ie was only 18 August 2016) when a Brief wa deadline on 18 February 2016, six ( the OSG finally filed its Brief. Surely, and inadvertenet ili and equity” OSG. if ‘The |Coutt| a herein. These | International, different fact only. for filed. In Tian by the reorg “the #etireme from one dep GR.No. Bhemt 2012 G.R./No. 133 1” im 20 i ‘three (3) months k in il 2016 to 18 May nr the extengion nst Paye 3 0° defdline, the OSG filed at's Brief, prayi rahted OSG the sedond r from the Second extension, or | on ing it from the original months (01 180) day's) elapsed before Marketing v B these caseh cited by appellant ‘ernational, |the appeal-brief was|filed en i lain of “sheer overgight f “in the inferest of substantial justice ality in favor of the 1 OSG to be inappligable agis ave sion i din , cases and perspnnel and dissolutign ofother depurtmen i | In the a) i ninety (90) days whi filed within Lil: se (3) months fro [Po because substantiy only for the relieve a litig&pt of an injustice not ee thoughtlessness in not complying wit as the oft quoted quip would put it, the cent aie of subst stice” is not « magic wand that wil this Court to suspend procedural rules." WHEREF Reconsiderati Further was filed by appellees. Heneef Fudalan Sp ENGR, CV NO, 108999 it In the al questioned Re Republic's Motion should be denied. the appellees) sl eal ith the de ion dated 26 July 2016 may sidered, re _ instant consisting of a total the OSG, ir dismissed simply rejidice to a party's ff be followed except may be relaxed to n the interest utginatically compel | no brief y € of his ote compelling |ground to egnvince the Court thal the eyersed or modified, the Motion | for , the Court NOT! ly that a Nokice of Change of Address fice, the counsel for the ur processes intend Foraye gue Saw > us ey mpg pe stay “Cy m ‘(uonnjosay) OY /M'D3Y LSZS0} ‘ON AD “Y'9-VO. AD PEyeW! 6zZL ABE|IIA Id5e97 “IS OJOSIOUIY EL Jes0uaD sOr}>HOs 21p Jo WO INV 0001 “WLI A3FYLS WSOHO VN STW3ddV 40 LUNOD