ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230296. April 2, 2018.]
KATIPUNAN FOOD SERVICE, INC., petitioner,vs. WILFRAN A. TEODORO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 2, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230296 — Katipunan Food Service, Inc., petitioner, v. Wilfran A. Teodoro, respondent.
Acting on the Petition, the Court, after considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, finds no sufficient reason to grant the same.
For clarity, the Court restates the relevant antecedents of this case.
Aggrieved with the Decision 1 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, petitioner filed an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, through its Decision 2 of May 31, 2016, the RTC ruled in favor of respondent. Still unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in an Order 3 dated August 3, 2016.
On September 5, 2016, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days 4 within which to file a Petition for Review. In said motion, petitioner stated that it received the August 3, 2016 RTC Order on July 19, 2016. Finding the same improbable, the CA denied the motion for extension in its assailed Resolution 5 of September 20, 2016, ratiocinating as follows:
Under Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, a Petition for Review may be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed. And, the original 15-day period to appeal is extendible for an additional fifteen (15) days upon the filing of a proper motion and the payment of docket fees within the reglementary period of appeal. From its allegations, We simply cannot determine the reckoning date of the 15-day period because it does not make sense that petitioner received as early as July an Order that was issued in August.
At any rate, even if We consider July 19, 2016 as the date of receipt of the assailed Order, it appears that the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on September 5, 2016 is obviously tardy as it was filed way beyond the 15-day period as prescribed by the rules. This is fatal and therefore warrants an outright denial of the motion since there is nothing to extend. 6 AScHCD
In its Compliance and Verified Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit, 7 petitioner explained that it inadvertently stated in its motion for extension its date of receipt of the August 3, 2016 RTC Order as July 19, 2016 instead of August 19, 2016. It thus asked for the CA's indulgence and prayed that the denial of its motion for extension be set aside and the Petition for Review it attached to the Compliance and Verified Motion for Reconsideration be admitted. The CA, however, was unrelenting and denied the said pleading in its Resolution 8 of February 27, 2017.
Petitioner thus brought the matter to this Court through the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. Respondent filed his Comment. 9 Thereupon, petitioner filed a Reply. 10
Our Ruling
In denying petitioner's Compliance and Verified Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit, the CA held that:
Even if We consider August 19, 2016 as the date of receipt of the assailed Order, it appears that the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on September 5, 2016 or seventeen (17) days after the receipt of the assailed order is still tardy. Then as now, a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Obviously, there is nothing to extend because petitioner's motion for extension failed to meet this condition. 11
This is erroneous.
Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court (Rules), provides viz.:
SECTION 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day; 12
In the instant case, assuming that petitioner received the assailed RTC Order on August 19, 2016, then the 15th or last day to file an appeal fell on September 3, 2016. Since September 3, 2016 was a Saturday, and pursuant to Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules, petitioner had until September 5, 2016, a Monday, within which to file an appeal or a motion for extension. Records show that petitioner filed its motion for extension on September 5, 2016; thus, it was error on the part of the CA to have ruled that the motion for extension was belatedly filed.
Be that as it may, the Petition must still be denied.
Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules Court clearly provides that in a Petition for Review, the CA may only grant an additional period of 15 days within which to file the petition. Any further extension shall be granted only for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed 15 days, viz.:
SECTION 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, x x x. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
Notably, the extension sought by petitioner in its Motion for Extension was for a period of 30 days, not 15 days initially, from the expiration of the reglementary period. This is not allowed under the said provision 13 as it is clear therefrom that only 15 days may initially be requested, not 30 days. 14
Petitioner cannot in one motion or pleading simultaneously pray for both the initial 15-day extension and the further extension of 15 days. This is because in seeking another extension of 15 days, the Rules require as ground "the most compelling reason" which is not the case in the initial 15-day extension sought. In this case, aside from seeking an initial extension of time of 30 days, petitioner cited as justification the lone ground that its counsel was recuperating from flu and was saddled with heavy pressure of professional work. This is hardly the "most compelling reason" the Rules require. "Sustaining [this] lone ground would obliterate the distinguishing essence of a further extension for it would do away with the necessity of presenting compelling grounds [for the further extension of 15 days], addressed to the sound discretion of the court." 15
In fine, petitioner could have only been granted an extension of 15 days from the expiration of the reglementary period, that is, until September 18, 2016, 16 within which to file its petition. Records, however, show that petitioner filed its Petition before the CA on October 5, 2016. 17 As such, it is futile to dwell on the issue of whether the CA should have reconsidered its September 20, 2016 Resolution denying petitioner's motion for extension. This is considering that at the time of its issuance on September 20, 2016, and on the assumption that petitioner was granted the initial 15-day extension as discussed above, the RTC Orders intended to be assailed had already attained finality due to the failure of petitioner to file the petition on or before September 18, 2016. Consequently, the Petition for Review subsequently submitted by petitioners can no longer be admitted.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition.
SO ORDERED."Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018. AcICHD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 96-107; penned by Presiding Judge Janet Abergos-Samar of MeTC, Quezon City, Branch 32.
2.Id. at 67-69; penned by Presiding Judge Lita S. Tolentino-Genilo of RTC, Quezon City, Br. 91.
3.Id. at 70.
4.Id. at 36-38.
5.Id. at 32-33; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Renato C. Francisco.
6.Id., emphasis supplied.
7.Id. at 39-43.
8.Id. at 34-35.
9.Id. at 125-132.
10.Id. at 137-147.
11.Id. at 34-35.
12. Emphasis supplied. See Reineir Pacific International Shipping, Inc. v. Captain Guevarra, 711 Phil. 438 (2013); Montajes v. People, 684 Phil. 1 (2012); and, Russel v. Ebasan, 633 Phil. 384 (2010), to name a few.
13.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 455 (2013).
14.Go v. BPI Finance Corp., 712 Phil. 579, 585 (2013).
15.Bernardo v. People, 549 Phil. 132, 143.
16. Fifteen (15) days from September 3, 2016 (the last day to file petition) is September 18, 2016; See Sec. 1, Rule 22 as clarified by A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC dated February 29, 2000.
17. See rollo, pp. 48, 115.