ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 156129. October 1, 2003]

vs. REYES

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 1 2003.

G.R. No. 156129 (Ramon Navarro vs. Hon. Amor A. Reyes as presiding judge of the RTC-Manila, Branch 21.)

In a Resolution dated October 8, 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari of petitioner on the ground that he cannot avail of the same in view of his pending appeal.Subsequently, in its Resolution dated November 18, 2002, the motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.Petitioner received copy of the Resolution dated November 18, 2002 on November 26, 2002.

On December 10, 2002, petitioner filed with this Court a motion for extension of fifteen days, or until December 26, 2002, within which to file his intended petition for review on certiorari.

On December 26, 2002, petitioner filed his petition for review on certiorari.On the same date, petitioner filed an Urgent Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Annexes of the Petition, alleging:

1.������� That the petition for review on certiorari incorporates several ANNEXURES, particularly ANNEX "A" to "Annex J";

2.������� That petitioner moves for an extension of seven (7) days from today, December 26, 2002 or up to January 2, 2003 to submit the ANNEXES "A" to "J" of the petition because he hard put to find a Xerox machine operator during the Christmas season;

xxx

Subsequently, on January 2, 2003, petitioner filed a Second Urgent Ex Parte Motion for extension of Time to Submit Annexes "A" to "J" of the Petition, contending:

1.������� That on December 26, 2002, when petitioner filed his petition, he also filed a motion for seven (7) days extension of time up to January 2, 20[0]3 to submit the ANNEXES "A" to "J" of the petition;

2.������� That petitioner moves for another extension of time up toJanuary 7, 2003 to submit the ANNEXES "A" to "J" of the petition because of his difficulty in Xeroxing his ANNEXES;

xxx

On January 7, 2003, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Annexes of the Petition, stating:

1.������� That on December 26, 2002 when petitioner filed the petition for review on certiorari, filed a motion for extension of time of seven (7) days or up to January 2, 2003 to submit the ANNEX "A" to ANNEX "J" of the petition and on January 2, 2003 he moved for another extension five (5) days or up to January 7, 2002 to submit said ANNEXES because of the difficulty of Xeroxing and voluminous documents and the Christmas season when the Xerox operator service were unavailable.

2.������� That submitted herein are the copies and/or certified true copies of documents and Xerox copies thereof for admission as part of the petition to wit ANNEXES "A" to "J".

xxx

The Annexes sought to be admitted are as follows:

Annex "A" Certified true copy of the Resolution dated October 8, 2002 of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari

Annex "B" Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals

Annex "C" Certified true copy of the Resolution dated November 18, 2002 of the Court of Appeals denying the motion for reconsideration

Annex "D" Decision dated November 29, 2001 of the RTC

Annex "E" Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC

Annex "F" Supplement to aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration

Annex "G" Order dated March 18, 2002 of the RTC denying the motion for reconsideration

Annex "H" Notice of Appeal dated April 11, 2002

Annex "I"�� Order dated May 22, 2001 of the RTC terminating pre-trial and setting date of initial trial

Annex "J"� Petition for Certiorari ex abundantia cautela before the Court of Appeals

In the Resolution of January 13, 2003, the Court denied the motion for extension of time to file petition for lack of sufficient showing that petitioner has not lost the fifteen-day reglementary period to appeal, it appearing that the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the assailed judgment was not stated.

In the Resolution of February 15, 2003, the Court denied the petition for review on Certiorari for failure to file the same within the reglementary period in view of the earlier denial of the motion for extension of time to file petition, and at the same time, denied the motions for first and second extension of time to submit annexes and the motion to admit the same.

Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of the Resolution of January 13, 2003, claiming that he has sufficiently shown in his petition the date when he filed his motion for reconsideration.Petitioner reproduces the section "Timeliness of the Petition or Statement of Material Dates" from said petition and points out that he received a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals on October 16, 2002 and he filed his motion for reconsideration on November 4, 2002.While the motion for reconsideration was admittedly filed nineteen days after receipt of the assailed decision, petitioner explains that:

xxx September 31, 2002 [should be October 31, 2002 per supplemental motion for reconsideration] which is the fifteenth (15^TH) day of receipt of the court of Appeals Decision was declared by Malacanang Palace as a non-working holiday in conjunction with November 1, 2002 or All Saints Day.But because November 2 & 3, 2002 fell on Saturday and Sunday, respectively, the motion for extension of fifteen (15) days to [f]ile the petition for review on certiorari was filed only on November 4, 2002, hence the fifteen days period to file the said petition has not been lost.

Petitioner then prays for liberty in the application of rules of procedure and states that he has a meritorious defense.

In the Resolution of April 30, 2003, the Court required respondent to comment on the motion for reconsideration.In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains the propriety of the denial of the motion for reconsideration for failure of petitioner to comply with rules of procedure.It also pointed out that not only did petitioner fail to state in his motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals but he likewise failed to submit documents which should accompany his petition as shown by his Motion to Submit Annexes.

The Court notes that instead of explaining why he failed to state the date of filing of his motion for reconsideration of the assailed judgment in his motion for extension, petitioner merely refers to his subsequently filed petition for review on certiorari where said material date has been stated.Even if the Court heeds the call of petitioner for liberality and considers such fact as sufficient compliance with the rules of procedures, his petition for review on certiorari should nonetheless be denied.As observed by the OSG, petitioner failed to accompany his petition with clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed judgment and resolution as required in Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure.The Court does not consider the alleged difficulty encountered by petitioner in photocopying the annexes during the Christmas season sufficient cause to warrant a twelve-day extension to submit the same.It does not appear in the motions filed by petitioner that there was a dearth of photocopying facilities or services in Metro Manila such that his annexes, with a total of sixty-two pages, cannot be readily photocopied in such number of copies as required by the rules and thereafter appended to the petition when it was filed before this Court on December 26, 2002.

More importantly, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of petitioner is DENIED there being no substantial argument to warrant the reconsideration sought.

SO ORDERED.

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

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011