[ G.R. No. 142657. June 19, 2000]

WISE & CO., INC. vs. ENRICO GATCHALIAN

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 19 2000.

G.R. No. 142657 (Wise & Co., Inc. vs. Enrico Gatchalian.)

This is a petition to review the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 20 December 1999 dismissing herein petitioner's petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time, and the Resolution dated 29 March 2000 of the same Court denying reconsideration of the earlier resolution. The antecedents are as follows:

From the adverse decision of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner appealed to the National Labor relations Commission (NLRC). Petitioner received the decision of the NLRC modifying the decision of the Labor Arbiter on 11 February 1999. On March 1999, petitioner received the resolution of the NLRC denying the motion for reconsideration. On 31 May 1999, petitioner filed in the Court of Appeals a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari. The court granted petitioner fifteen (15) days to file the petition subject to the timeliness of the motion for extension.

On 20 December 1999, the Court of Appeals1 Per the Twelfth Division; Hofile�a, J., Chairman, ponente, Barrios and Rosario JJ., Members, concurring. issued a resolution dismissing the petition. It held:

Rule 65, section 4, as amended by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98 provides:

xxx����� xxx����� xxx����� xxx

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.

Accordingly, when petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on 22 February 1999, eleven days had already lapsed from their receipt of the assailed decision. Thus, they had only forty-nine days within which to file a special civil action for certiorari. Counting from 30 March 1999, the date of receipt of the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration, the last day to file the instant petition fell on 18 May 1999. Petitioners, however, filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari" only on 31 May 1999. In a Resolution dated 11 June 1999, the Court granted petitioners an extension of fifteen days, or until 13 June 1999 (a Sunday), within which to file the petition subject, however, to the timeliness of the filing of the motion. The petition was filed on 14 June 1999.

From the foregoing, the obvious conclusion is that both the motion for extension and the petition itself were filed out of time. The Court's Resolution of 11 June 1999 categorically states that the extension given was "conditioned on the timeliness of its [the motion's] filing." This is not a meaningless proviso since the Court could not, per the allegations of the motion, determine the timeliness of the filing of the motion, petitioners having failed to indicate therein the material dates. Thus, petitioners' contention that the timeliness of the filing of the petition cannot be sustained. Neither does the Court consider the period for filing a petition for certiorari a mere technicality. On the contrary, such is jurisdictional in nature.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for having been filed out of time.

SO ORDERED. 2 Rollo, pp. 20-21. Italics in the original.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 29 March 2000.

Whether to Admit the petition despite the lapse of the reglementary period lies in the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals. The court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion when it dismissed the petition.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolve to DENY the petition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

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