ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146718.March 26, 2001]

MU�OZ vs. GO CHAN, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 26 2001.

G.R. No. 146718(Emerita Mu�oz vs. Samuel Go Chan and Aida C. Chan, et al.)

This treats of the Supplement to the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari filed on 8 February 2001 praying that the affidavit of service attached to the motion be admitted and considered as substantial compliance with the requirements for the issuance of a motion for extension, the Motion for Consolidation, and the Petition for Review on Certiorari.

On 13 October 2000 petitioner received copy of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. Thereafter she filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied in the appellate court's Resolution dated 5 January 2001, copy of which was received by her on 24 January 2001. Thus, petitioner had until 8 February 2001 to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari or a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari. On 5 February 2001 she filed a Motion for Extension but was denied on 14 February 2001 for lack of an affidavit of service of the motion on respondents. ¹ Rollo, p. 19.

However, a close perusal of the records shows that petitioner was able to separately file an affidavit of service within the reglementary period for filing the motion for extension. She attached the required affidavit of service to her Supplement to the Motion for Extension which she filed on 8 February 2001. ² Id., p. 20. In her Supplement, petitioner explained that after realizing that she failed to attach an affidavit of service to her Motion for Extension she immediately filed an affidavit of service within the time prescribed. ³ Ibid. Since she was able to file her Motion for Extension on 5 February 2001 and the affidavit of service thereof on 8 February 2001 then such Motion should be deemed to have been filed on time. Consequently, the petition which was filed within the extended period, 21 February 2001, was also filed on time. ⁴ Id., p. 24.

With regard to petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of this case with CR. No. 142676, "Mu�oz v. Atty. Yabut," pending before the Third Division of this Court, the Division Clerk of Court of the Second Division is directed to take the matter up with the Clerk of Court of the Third Division to determine the feasibility of consolidating the instant case with G.R. No. 142676, which is a lower number, and to effect the consolidation if proper.

ACCORDINGLY, the Resolution of the Court dated 14 February 2001, which denied petitioner's Motion for Extension, is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the petition is admitted and respondents are required to file their Comment/s thereto.

SO ORDERED. Quisumbing. J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE