The period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendable, SC clarifies. The RTC denied the motion to which we agree, since such motion is a transgression of the mandatory prohibition on the filing of a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration. In Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. v. Japson: “Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested.” In Rolloque v. Court of Appeals, we restated the rule, thus: “The filing by petitioners of a motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration did not toll the fifteen-day period before a judgment becomes final and executory.” It has, likewise, been explicitly stated in Section 2, Rule 40 and Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that in appeals from municipal trial courts or regional trial courts, no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. As the period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period to appeal; thus, petitioner had already lost his right to appeal the September 23, 2005 decision. As such, the RTC decision became final as to petitioner when no appeal was perfected after the lapse of the prescribed period. Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence, failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. xxx WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Resolutions dated January 7, 2008 and June 2, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.  De Leon v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 183239. June 02, 2014