ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 166790. March 13, 2006]

JUAN P. CABRERA versus HENRY ISAAC

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated MAR. 13, 2006

G.R. No. 166790 (Juan P. Cabrera versus Henry Isaac)

On December 22, 2005, petitioner Juan P. Cabrera wrote a letter to the Court questioning the Court's action on his petition. In particular, petitioner emphatically raised the following query:

IS NOT THE THIRD DIVISION'S PATENTLY ERRONEOUS FINDING THAT [HIS] PETITION WAS ALLEGEDLY FILED BY MAIL ON 24 MARCH 2005 (MAUNDY THURSDAY, POST OFFICE CLOSED) WHEN IN FACT IT WAS SO POSTED ON 24 FEBRUARY 2005 (FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE DEADLINE) NOT COMPELLING ENOUGH A REASON TO RECONSIDER AND SET ASIDE THE RESOLUTION OF 27 APRIL 2005?

The petition was calendared in the Third Division's agenda for April 27, 2005 where the Division Clerk of Court made the following notation:

Petition posted out of time.

Date posted: March 24, 2005

x x xx x xx x x

Due Date of Filing: February 28, 2005 (emphasis supplied)

The report prepared by a processor of the Receiving Unit of the Judicial Records Office (JRO) also stated that the petition was posted on March 24, 2005. Based on the Division Clerk of Court's note in the agenda and the JRO's report, the petition was denied for having been filed late.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied with finality.

In his letter, petitioner claimed that the petition was actually posted on February 24, 2005 which was within the period for its filing. Verification showed that his claim is true. In this connection, the Division Clerk of Court's notation in today's agenda is noteworthy:

The resolution dated 27 April 2005 denied the petition for late filing. In the resolution of August 17, 2005, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality.

It appears that the petition was indeed seasonably filed as claimed by petitioner. There was an inadvertent error on the part of the Receiving Unit of the Judicial Records Office in writing the date of posting as "3/24/05." (p. 10, rollo) The postal date mark appearing on the envelope that contained the petition shows that it was posted on February 24, 2005. (p. 83, rollo) The affidavit of service, as well as the registry receipts (p. 82, rollo), supports the claim of petitioner.

To avoid inflicting an injustice on petitioner and to rectify the undue denial of his petition resulting from the wrong notation of the Division Clerk of Court and the erroneous report of the JRO, petitioner's letter is pro hac vice treated as a second motion for reconsideration. In view of these circumstances, we find that reinstatement of his petition is proper.

WHEREFORE, the December 22, 2005 letter of petitioner Juan P. Cabrera, hereby treated as a motion for reconsideration, is GRANTED. The April 27, 2005 resolution is hereby SET ASIDE and the petition is REINSTATED. Respondent is ordered to file his COMMENT within 10 days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE