[G.R. No. 143072. July 5, 2000]

JIMMY T. GO a.k.a. JAIME GAISANO vs. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5 2000.

G.R. No. 143072 (Jimmy T. Go a.k.a Jaime Gaisano vs Alberto T. Looyuko.)

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside an order of the Regional Trial Court which denied his motion to dismiss a complaint filed by respondent. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it did not state the date of receipt by petitioner of the trial court's order, thus:

Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be reviewed. This rule does not contemplate that the 60-day period shall be reckoned from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, but from receipt of the decision, order, or resolution. This construction is made clear in the amendatory rule contained in Supreme Court En Banc Resolution, dated 21 June 1998, which pertinently reads:

Sec. 4. Where and When Petition To Be Filed. - 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. . . .

In the present case, the material date when the Order of 27 August 1999 was received, which is the date from which the 60-day period is to be reckoned with, is not stated in the petition. What is clearly reflected therein is that petitioner reckoned the 60 days prescribed period from receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration, which, as above pointed out, should not be the case.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was also denied. Hence this petition for review. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals should have considered the substantial merits of his petition for certiorari and excepted the same from the "rigid application of the Rules."

The petition has no merit. Rule 46, �3 of the 1997 Rules of Court Procedure, as amended by the Court's resolution, dated July 21, 1998, in Bar Matter No. 203, provides in pertinent part:

In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

The foregoing was adopted pursuant to Art XVIII, �12 of the Constitution which provide that -

The Supreme Court shall, within one year after the ratification of this Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. A similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

In Galang v Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 683, 687 (1991), the Court held that:

While it is true that litigation, is not a game of technicalities and that the rule of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, this does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudiced of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. Justice eschews anarchy.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the aforesaid petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Petitioner's motion for extension to file petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED and respondent's manifestation, dated May 25, 2000 is NOTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. 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