THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211826. June 11, 2014.]
DIEGO T. LIM, petitioner, vs. SARAH C. ADALIM, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 11, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211826 (Diego T. Lim v. Sarah C. Adalim). — Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the January 3, 2014 1 and February 4, 2014 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132762 which denied the petitioner's second motion for extension of time to file the petition for review for being filed beyond the extended period.
The Facts:
Respondent Sarah C. Adalim (Adalim) filed several administrative complaints against petitioner Mayor Diego T. Lim, the Municipal Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar (Mayor Lim), for Nepotism, to writ:
OMB-V-A-05-0299-G — Mayor Lim allegedly violated the prohibition on Nepotism when he appointed Eustaquio Taniñas (Eustaquio) as carpenter/painter. Eustaquio is a relative within the fourth civil degree by consanguinity as his father is the brother of Mayor Lim's mother.
OMB-V-A-05-0300-G — Mayor Lim allegedly violated the prohibition on Nepotism for appointing David Taniñas, (David), Fidel Lim (Fidel), Ramon Taninas (Ramon), and Junhly Guray (Junhly) as casual employees. David is Mayor Lim's cousin, the father of David and Mayor Lim's mother being siblings; Fidel and Mayor Lim's father are brothers; Ramon's father is the brother of Mayor Lim; and Junhly is the nephew of Mayor Lim's wife.
OMB-V-A-05-0301-G — wherein Mayor Lim allegedly violated the prohibition on Nepotism for appointing Arsenio Balmes (Arsenio) as laborer. Arsenio is the husband of Mayor Lim's first cousin.
OMB-V-A-05-0302-G — wherein Mayor Lim allegedly violated the prohibition on Nepotism for appointing Rogelio Munar (Rogelio), Jesus Lim (Jesus), Blas Taniñas (Blas), and Rosario Taniñas (Rosario) as casual employees. Rogelio is the husband of Mayor Lim's first cousin; Jesus' father and Mayor Lim's father are brothers; Blas' mother and Mayor Lim's father are also siblings; and Rosario is the wife of Mayor Lim's cousin.
In his Answer, Mayor Lim asked for the dismissal of the complaints as they were analogous to the cases, docketed as OMB-V-C-04-0469-I and OMB-V-A-04-0456-I, which were all dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) because casual employees were not covered by the rule on nepotism. Mayor Lim further asserted that the appointment he made fell under the non-career service since there were no required examinations for CSC first level or second level eligibility; and that they served under the pleasure of the appointing authority. CADSHI
On March 8, 2006, the Ombudsman, in its Consolidated Decision, 3 found Mayor Lim guilty of Nepotism and meted out the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay.
Mayor Lim filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in an Order, 4 dated September 27, 2013.
On November 7, 2013, Mayor Lim filed before the CA a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review, which was granted giving him until November 22, 2013 to file the petition.
On November 25, 2013 Mayor Lim filed a second motion for extension of time citing Typhoon Yolanda, which devastated parts of Leyte and Samar, as the reason for his failure to file the petition. The petition for review was filed thereafter on December 6, 2013 by registered mail.
In its Resolution, 5 dated January 3, 2014, the CA denied the second motion for extension of time for being filed beyond the extended period. Hence, the petition was deemed not filed and the case was considered closed and terminated.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the CA Resolution, 6 dated February 4, 2014.
Hence, this petition based on the sole issue of whether or not the CA abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it failed to consider super typhoon Yolanda as a valid and compelling reason for the petitioner's failure to file his second motion for extension of time and the petition for review within the extended time.
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee 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. [Underlining supplied]
The CA may have well been correct in dismissing the petition for review. Considering that the well-settled rule is that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. 7 Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. 8
Nevertheless, where there is justification for the belated action and there is no showing that the petitioner intended to delay the case, 9 the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. 10 In the case of Dela Cruz v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc., 11 the Court wrote:
Well settled is the rule that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. In accordance with this legal precept, this Court has ruled that being a few days late in the filing of the petition for review does not automatically warrant the dismissal thereof, specially where strong considerations of substantial justice are manifest in the petition.
In the case of Aguam v. Court of Appeals, 12 the Court held that the delay of nine (9) days in filing the motion for extension to file appellant's brief was excused in the higher interest of justice. Thus:
In the higher interest of justice, considering that the delay in filing a motion for extension to file appellant's brief was only for nine (9) days, and normally, the Court of Appeals would routinely grant such extension, and the appellant's brief was actually filed within the period sought, the better course of action for the Court of Appeals was to admit appellant's brief. ICHDca
Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of procedure will be overlooked when they arose from an honest mistake, when they have not prejudiced the adverse party. The Court can overlook the late filing of the motion for extension, if strict compliance with the rules would mean sacrificing justice to technicality.
In the case at bench, there appears a good and compelling reason to warrant the suspension of the rules. The failure of Mayor Lim to file his second motion for reconsideration within the extended period was excusable. Super typhoon Yolanda struck Eastern Visayas, including Samar, where the petitioner resided and held office. It is of general knowledge that the entire region was devastated causing widespread power interruptions, landslides and flash floods. Besides, there was no indication that the petitioner intended to delay the proceeding as he had immediately filed the petition for review on December 6, 2014 or within the extended period sought.
Time and again, this Court has consistently held that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate proceedings. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Members in view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691, dated May 22, 2014).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 27-29.
2. Id. at 31-32.
3. Id. at 105-121.
4. Id. at 122-123.
5. Id. at 27-29.
6. Id. at 31-32.
7. Vda. de Victoria v. Court of Appeals, 490 Phil. 210 (2005).
8. Bago v. People of the Philippines, 443 Phil. 503, 505-506 (2003).
9. Sps. Ampeloquio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 13 (2000).
10. Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 604 (2003).
11. 574 Phil. 441 (2008).
12. 388 Phil. 587 (2000).
13. Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, 573 Phil. 472 (2008).