March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 191052 : March 23, 2010] ANG ATING GABAY OFW PARTY (AAG-OFW PARTY) V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) :
[G.R. No. 191052 : March 23, 2010]
ANG ATING GABAY OFW PARTY (AAG-OFW PARTY) V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 23, 2010
"G.R. No, 191052 - Ang Ating Gabay OFW Party (AAG-OFW Party) v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
In a Resolution dated February 16, 2010, we denied petitioner's Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the following reasons:
(a) violation of Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC;
(b) failure to submit proof of service of the motion {e.g., a written admission of the party served, or the affidavit of the party serving, or the registry receipt) under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court;
(c) failure of the counsel for petitioner to indicate in the petition the number of his/her MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, as required in Bar Matter No. 1922;
(d) failure of the petitioner and its counsel to indicate their contact details as required in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC; and,
(e) failure to pay the docket and other legal fees within the reglementary period under Section 2 (b), Rule 56, in relation to Section 3 (4th par.), Rule 46, Rules of Court.
In view of said denial, the Court, in the same resolution, further resolved to note without action petitioner's (1) Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 dated
February 8, 2010 and, (2) Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 10, 2010.
Before us now is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of said February 16, 2010 Resolution.
Petitioner asserts that it filed an Urgent Motion for Extension because of a compelling reason - that is - the non-availability of certified true copies of the supporting documents required to be attached to its petition. As to the other deficiencies of said motion, it invokes the liberal application of technical rules in the interest of substantial justice.
There is no merit in the present motion for reconsideration.
The third paragraph of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that no extension of time to file a petition for certiorari shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. However, under the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC,[1] this paragraph was deleted. As we declared in Laguna Metis Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[2] the removal of said paragraph simply meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari, viz:
In view of this, petitioner's claim that it filed its Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari for a compelling reason does not hold water.
Even assuming that the grant of such extension is still allowed by the Rules, subject Motion was already filed beyond the reglementary period provided for under Rule 64.
The Rules of Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Commission on Audit (COA). This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari subject to the special period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC. The period is only 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30 days.[3] Section 3 of said Rule provides:
In this case, the following are the material antecedents: (1) The COMELEC First Division issued the assailed Resolution on September 22, 2009; (2) Petitioner received the same on October 15, 2009; (3) Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereto on October 20, 2009;[4] (4) The COMELEC En Bane issued a Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on November 24, 2009 and this was received by the latter on December 2, 2009. Taking these into account, the last day for the filing of a petition for certiorari or a motion for extension, assuming that same is still allowed, (i.e., 30 days from notice of the final COMELEC Resolution) was on December 27, 2009, petitioner having already consumed 5 days of the said 30-day period in preparing and filing its motion for reconsideration. Thus, when petitioner filed its Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari on February 9, 2009, it was already beyond the 30-day period which expired on December 27, 2009.
We cannot also heed petitioner's invocation of the liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[5] A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances, none of which is present in this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the motion for consideration for lack of merit. Our Resolution of February 16, 2010 is hereby declared FINAL. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course."
Puno, C.J., on official leave.
"G.R. No, 191052 - Ang Ating Gabay OFW Party (AAG-OFW Party) v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
RESOLUTION
In a Resolution dated February 16, 2010, we denied petitioner's Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the following reasons:
(a) violation of Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC;
(b) failure to submit proof of service of the motion {e.g., a written admission of the party served, or the affidavit of the party serving, or the registry receipt) under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court;
(c) failure of the counsel for petitioner to indicate in the petition the number of his/her MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, as required in Bar Matter No. 1922;
(d) failure of the petitioner and its counsel to indicate their contact details as required in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC; and,
(e) failure to pay the docket and other legal fees within the reglementary period under Section 2 (b), Rule 56, in relation to Section 3 (4th par.), Rule 46, Rules of Court.
In view of said denial, the Court, in the same resolution, further resolved to note without action petitioner's (1) Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 dated
February 8, 2010 and, (2) Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 10, 2010.
Before us now is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of said February 16, 2010 Resolution.
Petitioner asserts that it filed an Urgent Motion for Extension because of a compelling reason - that is - the non-availability of certified true copies of the supporting documents required to be attached to its petition. As to the other deficiencies of said motion, it invokes the liberal application of technical rules in the interest of substantial justice.
There is no merit in the present motion for reconsideration.
The third paragraph of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that no extension of time to file a petition for certiorari shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. However, under the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC,[1] this paragraph was deleted. As we declared in Laguna Metis Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[2] the removal of said paragraph simply meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari, viz:
The rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to prevent the use (or abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice. Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file petition on compelling grounds did away with the filing of such motions. As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.
In view of this, petitioner's claim that it filed its Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari for a compelling reason does not hold water.
Even assuming that the grant of such extension is still allowed by the Rules, subject Motion was already filed beyond the reglementary period provided for under Rule 64.
The Rules of Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Commission on Audit (COA). This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari subject to the special period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC. The period is only 30 days from notice of the decision or ruling (instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 provides), with the intervening period used for the filing of any motion for reconsideration deductible from the originally-granted 30 days.[3] Section 3 of said Rule provides:
SEC. 3. Time to file petition. - The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
In this case, the following are the material antecedents: (1) The COMELEC First Division issued the assailed Resolution on September 22, 2009; (2) Petitioner received the same on October 15, 2009; (3) Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereto on October 20, 2009;[4] (4) The COMELEC En Bane issued a Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on November 24, 2009 and this was received by the latter on December 2, 2009. Taking these into account, the last day for the filing of a petition for certiorari or a motion for extension, assuming that same is still allowed, (i.e., 30 days from notice of the final COMELEC Resolution) was on December 27, 2009, petitioner having already consumed 5 days of the said 30-day period in preparing and filing its motion for reconsideration. Thus, when petitioner filed its Very Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari on February 9, 2009, it was already beyond the 30-day period which expired on December 27, 2009.
We cannot also heed petitioner's invocation of the liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[5] A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances, none of which is present in this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the motion for consideration for lack of merit. Our Resolution of February 16, 2010 is hereby declared FINAL. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course."
Puno, C.J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court, effective December 27, 2007.
[2] G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009.
[3] Pates vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009.
[4] Per stamp received of the COMELEC, rollo, p. 21.
[5] Pates vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009.
