January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 190470 : January 25, 2010] MARIA TANYA ROSE B. CRESPO V. ALFRED JOSEPH R. CAMPAÑER:
[G.R. No. 190470 : January 25, 2010]
MARIA TANYA ROSE B. CRESPO V. ALFRED JOSEPH R. CAMPAÑER
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 25 January 2010:
G.R. No. 190470 - (Maria Tanya Rose B. Crespo v. Alfred Joseph R. Campa�er).-
Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcement of procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantive rights of the litigants. The policy of the courts is to give effect to both procedural and substantive laws, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.[1]
The Facts and the Case
This case originated from a Petition[2] for Habeas Corpus filed on March 9, 2007 by respondent Alfred Joseph R. Campa�er, natural father of the minor Joyce Ann Marie C. Campa�er, against the child's natural mother, the petitioner Maria Tanya Rose B. Crespo.
On March 14, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 22 [3]issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus[4] addressed to the herein petitioner ordering her to produce the person of the minor. When the case was called for hearing, the petitioner failed to appear. Hence, on March 15, 2007, the trial court issued an Order[5] treating the petition as a custody case. Petitioner did not file an answer. After reception of testimonial and documentary evidence, the trial court thence issued a Decision[6] dated July 6, 2007, awarding to the herein respondent the custody of the minor.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals praying for an extension of 15 days. Without waiting for the Court of Appeals to act on her Motion, the petitioner filed her Petition during the requested extended period but beyond the 60 day reglementary period prescribed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On December 24, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued its Resolution[7] holding that an extension of time to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is no longer allowed under the latest amendments to the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the motion was denied in a Resolution[8] dated November 26, 2009.
Hence, this petition.
We find that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that an extension of time to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is no longer allowed under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which took effect on December 27, 2007. Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit. As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory. The 60-day period is deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and to prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. Hence, when the petitioner filed her Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, the prescribed period for filing the same had already lapsed. As a consequence thereof, the Court of Appeals properly held that the aforesaid Petition for Certiorari cannot accordingly be given due course.
At any rate, petitioner is not without remedies. It must be stressed that the grant of custody is always provisional in nature. In fact, the trial court, in its July 6, 2007 Decision held as follows;
Moreover, we held in Unson III v. Navarro[11] that decisions of the courts on the custody of minor children are always open to adjustments as the circumstances relevant to the matter may demand in the light of the inflexible criterion, namely the paramount interest of the children. Thus, should there be a change in circumstances, petitioner's remedy is to bring this to the attention of the custody court which can grant reliefs as warranted by the paramount interest of the child.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 24, 2008 denying the motion for extension and the Resolution dated November 26, 2009 denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED. Abad, J., on official leave.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Renato C. Corona (designated additional member per S.O. No. 812), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 25th day of January, 2010.
G.R. No. 190470 - (Maria Tanya Rose B. Crespo v. Alfred Joseph R. Campa�er).-
Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcement of procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantive rights of the litigants. The policy of the courts is to give effect to both procedural and substantive laws, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.[1]
The Facts and the Case
This case originated from a Petition[2] for Habeas Corpus filed on March 9, 2007 by respondent Alfred Joseph R. Campa�er, natural father of the minor Joyce Ann Marie C. Campa�er, against the child's natural mother, the petitioner Maria Tanya Rose B. Crespo.
On March 14, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 22 [3]issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus[4] addressed to the herein petitioner ordering her to produce the person of the minor. When the case was called for hearing, the petitioner failed to appear. Hence, on March 15, 2007, the trial court issued an Order[5] treating the petition as a custody case. Petitioner did not file an answer. After reception of testimonial and documentary evidence, the trial court thence issued a Decision[6] dated July 6, 2007, awarding to the herein respondent the custody of the minor.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals praying for an extension of 15 days. Without waiting for the Court of Appeals to act on her Motion, the petitioner filed her Petition during the requested extended period but beyond the 60 day reglementary period prescribed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On December 24, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued its Resolution[7] holding that an extension of time to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is no longer allowed under the latest amendments to the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the motion was denied in a Resolution[8] dated November 26, 2009.
Hence, this petition.
We find that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that an extension of time to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is no longer allowed under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which took effect on December 27, 2007. Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit. As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory. The 60-day period is deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and to prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. Hence, when the petitioner filed her Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, the prescribed period for filing the same had already lapsed. As a consequence thereof, the Court of Appeals properly held that the aforesaid Petition for Certiorari cannot accordingly be given due course.
At any rate, petitioner is not without remedies. It must be stressed that the grant of custody is always provisional in nature. In fact, the trial court, in its July 6, 2007 Decision held as follows;
As it is, this Court finds compelling reasons to temporarily[9] deprive respondent MARIA TANYA ROSE B. CRESPO her parental authority and custody over the person of minor JOYCE ANN MARIE C. CAMPA�ER and award them to Petitioner ALFRED JOSEPH R. CAMPA�ER.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, and considering the paramount welfare and interest of the minor JOYCE ANN MARIE C. CAMPA�ER, the court hereby awards unto petitioner ALFRED JOSEPH R. CAMPA�ER her care, custody and control.[10]
Moreover, we held in Unson III v. Navarro[11] that decisions of the courts on the custody of minor children are always open to adjustments as the circumstances relevant to the matter may demand in the light of the inflexible criterion, namely the paramount interest of the children. Thus, should there be a change in circumstances, petitioner's remedy is to bring this to the attention of the custody court which can grant reliefs as warranted by the paramount interest of the child.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 24, 2008 denying the motion for extension and the Resolution dated November 26, 2009 denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED. Abad, J., on official leave.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Renato C. Corona (designated additional member per S.O. No. 812), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 25th day of January, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Courts
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Courts
Endnotes:
[1] Mayor Balindong v. Court of Appeals, 488 Phil. 203, 216 (2004).
[2] Rollo, pp. 59-67.
[3] Presided by Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang
[4] Rollo, p. 73.
[5] Id. at 74.
[6] Id. at 75-82.
[7] Id. at 44-46.; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.
[8] Id. at 48-50.
[9] Emphasis supplied
[10] Rollo, p. 82.
[11] 189 Phil. 143, 148(1980).