ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144336. January 24, 2001]

PT&T, et al. vs. BPI, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 24 2001.

G.R. No. 144336 (Phil. Telegraph and Telephone Corp.,et al. vs. BPI, et al.)

Petitioners Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (PT&T) and Republic Telecommunications Holdings, Inc. (RETELCOM) file this petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution, dated 2 March 2000, of the Court of Appeals denying their petition for review for late filing. Likewise assailed is the resolution of 10 July 2000 of the appellate court denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

In its 2 March 2000 resolution, the CA denied petitioners' petition for review filed therewith for having been filed late by registered mail on 10 February 2000 when the due date thereof was 7 February 2000. The CA based its conclusion on the postmark stamped on the envelope containing the subject petition. In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners insisted that their petition was seasonably filed on 7 February 2000. They buttressed their claim by submitting the following documents: the registry receipts nos. 8819 and 8820, both darted 7 February 2000, under which the petition was purportedly sent by registered mail; certification, dated 25 March 2000, issued by the Domestic Airport Post Office and signed by Herbert C. Atienza, Assistant Postmaster, and; affidavit of the messenger of petitioner's counsel.

The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration stating that the postmark on the envelope conclusively showed that the petition was filed on 10 February 2000, or three (3) days after its due date. The certification of the assistant postmaster and the affidavit of the messenger were dismissed by the CA as "barefaced allegations" not warranting reconsideration. Further, according to the CA, the original registry receipts were not attached to the original petition.

In the instant petition, petitioners maintain that the petition for review filed with the CA was filed on time. They assert that the CA erred when it did not consider the documents they submitted with their motion for reconsideration supporting their claim that the petition was filed on 7 February 2000 and not on 10 February 2000. They cite Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court which provides, among others, that the date of filing of pleadings by registered mail shall be the date of mailing thereof as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt.

The petition is bereft of merit.

The Court finds that the CA did not err in denying petitioners' petition for review filed therewith for being late. Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 3. Manner of filing. - The Filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. x x x In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of filing, payment or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.

In this case, the CA determined the date of filing of the petition on the basis solely of the postmark (bearing the date 10 February 2000) of the Domestic Airport Post Office in the envelope which contained the petition because the original registry receipts were not attached thereto. The CA correctly gave scant consideration to the documents (certification of the assistant postmaster, affidavit of the messenger and registry receipts) attached to petitioners' motion for reconsideration purportedly showing that the petition was filed on 7 February 2000 in light of the fact that the postmark on the envelope unequivocally showed that the petition contained therein was sent by registered mail, and therefore filed, only on 10 February 2000, three (3) days after its due date.

The Court is likewise constrained to deny the instant petition for failure of petitioners to raise any substantial arguments to warrant the reversal of the assailed resolutions of the CA.

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE