March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188818 : March 02, 2010] TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT. :
[G.R. No. 188818 : March 02, 2010]
TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 2, 2010
"G.R. No. 188818 - TOMAS R. OSME�A, petitioner, -versus- COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
RESOLUTION
On August 18, 2009, we resolved to dismiss petitioner Tomas Osme�a's petition for certiorari, filed under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, for having been filed out of time. When the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of the respondent's May 6, 2008 decision, the petitioner had already used up 18 days of the 30-day period provided under Section 3 of Rule 64, leaving him 12 days, counted from notice of denial of the motion, to file the petition for certiorari. Since the petitioner's office received the notice of denial (embodied in the respondent's Resolution of June 8, 2009) on June 29, 2009, he had until July 11, 2009 (or to be accurate, until July 13, 2009 since July 11 was a Saturday) to file the petition. As the petition was filed only on July 27, 2009, it was technically filed out of time.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 18, 2009 Resolution on October 2, 2009. He pleads with the Court to relax the application of the Rules in his case, as he was out of the country for a medical treatment at the time his office received the notice of denial. He referred to the mandatory medical check-ups he had to undergo in Houston, Texas after his cancer surgery in April 2009 as sufficient reason for the delay in the filing of the petition for certiorari. Apparently, due to his weakened state of health, he could not very well be expected to be bothered by the affairs of his office and had to focus only on his medical treatment and recovery. Thus, he claims that the reglementary period should begin to run again only after he received actual notice of the respondent's Resolution of June 8, 2009, i.e., upon his return to office on July 15, 2009.
The petitioner additionally argues that even if he were aware of the receipt by his office of the respondent's June 8, 2009 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration of the May 6, 2008 Decision, he could not personally affix his signature to the verification/certificate of non-forum shopping that must necessarily accompany the petition. At the same time, he could not require his office to represent him and attend to the case, as he was being charged in his personal capacity. Indeed, upon his return, he needed sufficient time to hire a private counsel to prepare the petition for certiorari.
We required the respondent to file a comment on the petitioner's Motion for reconsideration, which it did on February 4, 2010.
In light of the undisputed merit of the petitioner's reasons for his failure to immediately respond to the challenged decision, we resolve to suspend the Rules and allow the counting of the period to file the petition for certiorari to start upon petitioner's return to the country on July 15, 2009. Hence, the petition, filed on July 27, 2009, was timely filed.
Without giving due course to the petition, we hereby require the respondent to COMMENT on the Petition for Certiorari, addressing all the issues raised in the petition, within 10 days from notice."
"G.R. No. 188818 - TOMAS R. OSME�A, petitioner, -versus- COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
RESOLUTION
On August 18, 2009, we resolved to dismiss petitioner Tomas Osme�a's petition for certiorari, filed under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, for having been filed out of time. When the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of the respondent's May 6, 2008 decision, the petitioner had already used up 18 days of the 30-day period provided under Section 3 of Rule 64, leaving him 12 days, counted from notice of denial of the motion, to file the petition for certiorari. Since the petitioner's office received the notice of denial (embodied in the respondent's Resolution of June 8, 2009) on June 29, 2009, he had until July 11, 2009 (or to be accurate, until July 13, 2009 since July 11 was a Saturday) to file the petition. As the petition was filed only on July 27, 2009, it was technically filed out of time.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 18, 2009 Resolution on October 2, 2009. He pleads with the Court to relax the application of the Rules in his case, as he was out of the country for a medical treatment at the time his office received the notice of denial. He referred to the mandatory medical check-ups he had to undergo in Houston, Texas after his cancer surgery in April 2009 as sufficient reason for the delay in the filing of the petition for certiorari. Apparently, due to his weakened state of health, he could not very well be expected to be bothered by the affairs of his office and had to focus only on his medical treatment and recovery. Thus, he claims that the reglementary period should begin to run again only after he received actual notice of the respondent's Resolution of June 8, 2009, i.e., upon his return to office on July 15, 2009.
The petitioner additionally argues that even if he were aware of the receipt by his office of the respondent's June 8, 2009 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration of the May 6, 2008 Decision, he could not personally affix his signature to the verification/certificate of non-forum shopping that must necessarily accompany the petition. At the same time, he could not require his office to represent him and attend to the case, as he was being charged in his personal capacity. Indeed, upon his return, he needed sufficient time to hire a private counsel to prepare the petition for certiorari.
We required the respondent to file a comment on the petitioner's Motion for reconsideration, which it did on February 4, 2010.
In light of the undisputed merit of the petitioner's reasons for his failure to immediately respond to the challenged decision, we resolve to suspend the Rules and allow the counting of the period to file the petition for certiorari to start upon petitioner's return to the country on July 15, 2009. Hence, the petition, filed on July 27, 2009, was timely filed.
Without giving due course to the petition, we hereby require the respondent to COMMENT on the Petition for Certiorari, addressing all the issues raised in the petition, within 10 days from notice."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court.