FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247579. August 14, 2019.]
ARTURO S. CAHAGNA-AN, JR., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS AND QUEST EXPLORATION DRILLING [PHILIPPINES], INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247579 (Arturo S. Cahagna-an, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Quest Exploration Drilling [Philippines], Inc.) — The petitioner's urgent motion for an extension of ten (10) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on June 23, 2019 within which to file a petition for certiorari is DENIED for failing to submit a proof of service of the motion (e.g., a written admission of the party served or the affidavit of the party serving together with the registry receipt) as required under Sec. 13, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Arturo S. Cahagna-an, Jr., (petitioner) assailing the Resolutions dated January 10, 2019, 1 March 18, 2019, 2 and April 10, 2019, 3 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158402.
Antecedents
The case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner against private respondent Quest Exploration Drilling (Philippines), Inc. (QED). The Labor Arbiter found private respondent guilty of illegal dismissal of petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with payment of back wages and indemnity. QED appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which granted the appeal and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal. However, without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA.
In the first assailed January 10, 2019 Resolution, 4 the CA outrightly denied the petition on the following grounds:
a) petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed NLRC decision;
b) there was no affidavit of service that accompanied the petition and there was no explanation why the petition was served through registered mail;
c) petitioner's PTR number issued on April 17, 2017, is not current; and
d) material portions of the petition were not appended.
Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA, in the second assailed March 18, 2019 Resolution, 5 denied the motion citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Judge Japson, et al., 6 where the Court declared that no motion for extension to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the courts lower than the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was allegedly filed on February 18, 2019. However, in view of the denial of the motion for extension of time filed by petitioner, the CA merely noted without action the motion for reconsideration in its third assailed April 10, 2019 Resolution. 7
Petitioner's counsel filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari on June 25, 2019, asking for ten (10) days within which to file a petition under Rule 65.
Subsequently, on July 4, 2019, petitioner came before the Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
The Court's Ruling
We dismiss the petition as it is imbued with technical errors that prove fatal to his claim.
First, it was petitioner's counsel who filed the urgent motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari without authority from petitioner. No verification and certification of non-forum shopping were attached to the motion. The attached screenshot of the text exchanges between counsel and petitioner is also undated, and was not even acknowledged by petitioner in his petition filed on July 4, 2019. But even if we brush aside this technical error, we observe further crucial errors committed by petitioner.
Petitioner availed of a wrong remedy. In Albor v. Court of Appeals, et al., 8 we held that "a special civil action under Rule 65 is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. It is an independent action that lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as the court a quo acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court." Petitioner assails the CA's resolutions arguing that the same are too technical despite the fact that strong consideration of substantive justice are manifest in his petition. Such resolutions, however, are reviewable under Rule 45. As we have held, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, that is, regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which in essence is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. 9
Second, the denial of the motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration may have been appealed to this Court via Rule 45, but it appears that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 2019 Resolution. Petitioner allowed the period to file a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for extension of time to lapse. Thus, for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 2019 Resolution, his remedy under Rule 45 has expired.
Additionally, this failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration is also fatal to his Rule 65 petition considering that it is a condition sine qua non in filing a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. 10
Although this rule admits well-defined exceptions, such as (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved, 11 this case does not fall under any of these exceptions. Petitioner even failed to explain his failure to file the required motion for reconsideration.
To repeat, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was on the denial of his petition by the CA and not on the denial of the motion for extension of time to file his motion for reconsideration. In fact, this motion for reconsideration was not even considered by the CA.
Petitioner counted the period of sixty (60) days from his alleged receipt of the April 10, 2019 Resolution to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. However, let it be emphasized that the CA merely noted without action petitioner's motion for reconsideration in view of its earlier ruling denying the motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration. Simply put, petitioner cannot ask for a relief on the January 10, 2019 and March 18, 2019 Resolutions as the period to assail these had already lapsed rendering them final and unappealable. On the other hand, we do not see any relief available to petitioner on the April 10, 2019 Resolution as he likewise failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the same as required under Rule 65.
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 18; signed by Division Clerk of Court Atty. Celedonia M. Ogsimer.
2.Id. at 19.
3.Id. at 20.
4.Supra note 1.
5.Supra note 2.
6. 226 Phil. 144, 148 (1986).
7.Supra note 3.
8. G.R. No. 196598, January 17, 2018.
9.Id.
10.S/G Luna v. National Labor Relations Commission, 336 Phil. 963 (1997).
11.Republic of the Phils. v. Bayao, et al., 710 Phil. 279, 287-288 (2013).