ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 146479.September 17, 2001]
DIANA JEAN F. PRADO vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 17 2001.
G.R. No. 146479(Diana Jean F. Prado vs. Office of the Ombudsman.)
Petition for review on certiorari assailing the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated October 23, 2000 denying petitioner's second motion for extension within which to file a petition for review; and its resolution dated December 18, 2000 denying her motion for reconsideration.
On February 7, 1997, the Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau of respondent Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative complaint against petitioner Diana Jean Prado, of the Department of Health (DOH) and the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI), relative to the purchase of blood bags for the use of the National Voluntary Blood Donation Program of the government.
On June 13, 2000, respondent Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct.
On July 3, 2000, petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied on July 19, 2000.
On September 1, 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of 15 days, or until September 16, 2000, within which to file a petition for review. This motion was granted.
Instead of filing the petition for review on or before September 16, petitioner, on September 18 (September 16 being a Saturday), filed with the Court of Appeals a second motion for extension of 15 days, or until October 3, within which to file the petition.
On October 3, 2000, petitioner filed her petition for review.
In a resolution dated October 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's second motion for extension of time to file the petition for review for having been filed late.
On November 17, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner alleged therein that since the last day for filing the petition fell on a Saturday, she seasonably filed her second motion for extension the next working day (Monday, September 18, 2000).
The petition lacks merit.
The Court of Appeals, upon petitioner's first motion for extension, allowed her to file her petition within 15 days, or on before September 16, 2000. But she filed it too late, or on October 3, anticipating that her second motion for extension up to that date would be granted.
Time and again, this Court has held that lawyers and litigants should never assume that their motions for extension would be granted, 1 Tiomico vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 216; Fortich vs. Corona, 298 SCRA 678 (1998). especially so in this case where petitioner's ground for asking extensions is that her counsel was then preparing a motion for reconsideration in another case, a reason so flimsy and undeserving of merit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
