5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly It may not be amiss to add that this Court notes the propensity of petitioner and her counsel to disregard the Rules and directives of the Court. In a Resolution[15] issued by this Court on March 14, 2011, petitioner's counsel was admonished for his failure to file petitioner's Reply to Comment which was required in an earlier Resolution issued by this Court. Moreover, it is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provision of law.[16] An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated.[17] The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases.[18] In an age where courts are bedevilled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.[19] Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. In the instant case, petitioner remained obstinate in her non-observance of the said Rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with her late plea for liberality in construing the Rules. On the above basis alone, the Court finds that the instant petition is dismissible. In any case, even if the Court bends its Rules to allow the present petition, as it appears that petitioner assails not only the denial by the CA of her motion to admit her belated Motion for Reconsideration but likewise seeks the reversal of her conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa, the Court still finds no cogent reason to depart from the assailed ruling of the CA. Indeed, after a careful and thorough review of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the lower courts did not commit any error in convicting petitioner of the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa. At this point, it bears reiterating that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally held binding and conclusive on the Court.[20] We emphasize that while jurisprudence has provided exceptions[21] to this rule, the petitioner carries the burden of proving that one or more exceptional circumstances are present in the case. [22] The petitioner must additionally show that the cited exceptional circumstances will have a bearing on the results of the case.[23] In the instant case, the Court finds that none of the exceptions are present . Thus, there is no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and the CA that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The crime of illegal recruitment is defined under Section 6 of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, which provides as follows: Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58317 5/11