[G.R. No. 145183.December 6, 2000]

LA CAMPANA DEV'T CORP. vs. TIJAM, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 6 2000.

G.R. No. 145183(La Campana Development Corp. vs. Hon. Noel C. Tijam, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 221, Quezon City, Wilfred Sy, Willy Lim, Azarias Han Chiong, et al.)

Petitioner La Campana Development Corp. filed ejectment suits against several persons, among them the herein respondents Wilfred Sy, Willy Lim, Azarias Han Chiong, Marie Grace Huang, Alexander Sy, and Wilcon Builders. The cases were later consolidated and assigned to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 31, Quezon City.

On October 12, 1999, the MeTC rendered a consolidated decision in favor of petitioner. Respondents appealed, while the other defendants filed a petition for annulment of the MeTC's decision in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 221, Quezon City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-39173.

Upon learning of the latter case, respondents moved for withdrawal of their appeal and later for intervention in Civil Case No. Q-99-39173. In their complaint-in-intervention, respondents alleged that, together with the other defendants in the original ejectment suits, they had been lessees of petitioners since 1992 and that on November 3, 1994, they were persuaded by petitioner to enter into an addendum contract of lease on the representation that petitioner was still the owner of the subject properties. The fact, however, was that on October 12, 1999, the leased premises had been judicially adjudicated to the Development Bank of the Philippines. Petitioner opposed respondents' intervention on the ground that the latter had already appealed the MeTC's decision.

On April 3, 2000, the RTC allowed respondents' intervention. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration, but its motion was denied. Petitioner, therefore, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on June 13, 2000, but its petition was dismissed by the appeals court in its resolution dated June 29, 2000 on the ground that the petition was filed beyond the sixty (60) day period allowed for filing petitions for certiorari. On July 14, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution which was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals on September 15, 2000.

Hence this petition.

Rule 65, �4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by SC Circular No. 39-98, effective September 1, 1998, provided:

SEC. 4. Where and when petition to be filed. - The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or . . . in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, . . .

If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. 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 such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis added)

����������� As the Court of Appeals held:

A careful reading of the instant petition for certiorari reveals that the assailed Orders dated 3 April 2000 and 11 April 2000 were both received by the petitioner on even dates. On 7 April 2000, a motion for reconsideration was filed in the Court a quo.

It should be noted that from 3 April 2000 to 7 April 2000 when petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, four (4) days were already consumed out of the sixty (60) days period within which to file a petition for certiorari. The remaining period of fifty-six (56) days is to be counted from 11 April 2000 and falls due on 6 June 2000. The herein petition was filed only on 13 June 2000, seven (7) days beyond the reglementary period.

Petitioner contends, however, that under Circular A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which further amended Rule 65, �4, the 60-day reglementary period is reckoned to commence from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration if one was filed, and that although the Circular took effect only on September 1, 2000, the same should be retroactively applied to the petition for certiorari filed by it in the Court of Appeals on June 13, 2000.

The contention is without merit. Petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration of the Order of April 3, 2000 of RTC, Branch 221 on April 7, 2000 and later, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA on June 13, 2000. Clearly, the applicable procedure was still that of SC Circular No. 39-98 which provided that if the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration seasonably after the receipt of the notice of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution, the fixed period of 60 days shall be interrupted. If such motion for reconsideration is denied, the petitioner may file the petition for certiorari within the remaining period. Having failed to file the petition within the reglementary period of 60 days, petitioner cannot invoke retroactive application of the rules in its attempt to reinstate the dismissed petition.

The resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari was promulgated on June 29, 2000, before the amendment of Rule 65, �4 by Circular A.M. No. 00-2-03 SC on September 1, 2000.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com