SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235496. January 31, 2018.]
MENCHIE L. MANALO, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EDNA T. ALONZO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated31 January 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 235496 (Menchie L. Manalo v. Court of Appeals, Edna T. Alonzo). — This is a petition for certiorari alleging that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in merely noting without action its Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology) of the denial of its Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari, which the Court of Appeals erroneously considered as a second motion for reconsideration, and in denying its motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari despite a good reason therefor.
Before the Regional Trial Court of Masbate City, Branch 46 (RTC), petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Damages, seeking for the nullification of the decision rendered by the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Aroroy-Baleno dated March 22, 2016 and the nullification and setting aside of the Writ of Execution dated June 14, 2016 issued in the said case. 1
In an Order 2 dated July 27, 2016, the RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari as it was filed out of time. Petitioner received the MCTC Decision on March 22, 2016 and then filed the petition for certiorari with the RTC on June 20, 2016 or 90 days after. Hence, it was filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals an Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari3 dated November 21, 2016 within the 60-day period to file the petition. He sought an extension of 15 days from November 21, 2016 within which to file the petition. He stated that he was still undergoing physical therapy due to his swollen wrists caused by synovitis and tendinitis, which caused him severe pain and difficulty to use his hands, and he cannot normally use his computer to make his pleadings, and he was a solo practitioner. He attached to his motion an MRI taken on August 1, 2016, during the period that he was still under evaluation for the wrist pain.
In a Resolution 4 dated February 20, 2017, the CA denied the motion on the ground that the prescribed 60-day period within which a petition for certiorari should be filed is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. While there are recognized exceptions to the strict observance of the rule, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. 5 It held that petitioner counsel's swollen wrists due to synovitis and tendinitis without any medical certificate to support such claim nor being a solo practitioner are insufficient reasons to justify relaxation of the procedural rules.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology dated March 8, 2017. He apologized for failing to attach a medical certificate to his earlier motion as he assumed that the MRI result was substantial enough without the need of going again to Metro Manila for the sole purpose of requesting a medical certificate from his attending doctor. He attached a copy of his Medical Certificate dated March 4, 2017 to his motion. He stated that he filed the petition for certiorari on December 6, 2016, or within the 15-day period of extension sought for. He prayed that the Court of Appeal grants his motion for reconsideration, accepts his apology, and admits and gives due course to his petition for certiorari.
In a Resolution 6 dated August 16, 2017, the CA merely noted without action the motion for reconsideration dated March 8, 2017 as it stated that it was a second motion for reconsideration with leave of court to admit petition for certiorari.
The CA held:
This treats the second motion for reconsideration with leave of court to admit petition for certiorari filed by petitioner, through counsel, on 8 March 2017, with Comment filed by private respondent, through counsel, on 15 May 2016.
We take no action on the instant second motion for reconsideration with leave of court to admit petition for certiorari. The unmistakable import of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, mandates that in case of denial of the motion for reconsideration, the petition shall be filed within 60 days from the receipt of the notice of such denial. That the second motion for reconsideration raised fresh arguments that need to be addressed anew by the court is of no moment, otherwise, there will be no end in the litigation. The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of the parties. To rule otherwise would completely negate the purpose of the rule on completeness of service, which is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgment and processes beyond the power of the party to determine at his pleasure.
Clearly, allowing a petition for certiorari, even if belatedly filed, should never be taken lightly. The order attains finality by the lapse of the period for taking an appeal without such assailing the said order. Decisions or resolutions must attain finality at some point and its attainment of finality should not be made dependent on the will of a party. aScITE
It is a well-settled principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always he eschewed. In deciding a case, the appellate court has the discretion whether or not to dismiss the same, which discretion must be exercised soundly and in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, taking into account the circumstances of the case. No one has a vested right to file an appeal or a petition for certiorari. These are statutory privileges which may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with by the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.
WHEREFORE, the second motion for reconsideration with leave of court to admit petition for certiorari is merely NOTED without ACTION. 7
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that:
1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in treating the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology as a second motion for reconsideration when the same motion for reconsideration was merely the first one and not a second motion for reconsideration from the February 20, 2017 Resolution;
2. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file certiorari;
3. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it merely noted without action the March 8, 2017 Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology rather than giving due course to it;
4. A motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari is not absolutely prohibited but the grant thereof is subject to the sound discretion of the Court.
Petitioner prays that: (1) the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148569 be declared as null and void, or otherwise be set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (2) an Order be issued directing the Court of Appeals to give due course and admit the Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari and to admit the Petition for Certiorari; and (3) the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 148569 be set for further proceedings concomitant with the petition for certiorari already filed.
A review of the records shows that the first pleading filed by petitioner before the Court of Appeals was an Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari dated November 21, 2016, requesting for a period of fifteen (15) days from November 21, 2016 or until December 6, 2016 to file the petition. Petitioner filed the Petition for Certiorari on December 6, 2016. In a Resolution dated February 2, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari. On March 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology. Instead of acting on the said motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals stated that it was a second motion for reconsideration and merely noted it without action. Clearly, the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology was the first motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari and there was no second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. The Court of Appeals was remiss in its duty and gravely abused its discretion in merely noting without action the said motion for reconsideration. We grant the petition insofar as the Resolution dated August 16, 2017 merely noted without action the said motion for reconsideration and set aside the same.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 16, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 148569 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, and the appellate court is directed to rule with dispatch on the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Leave to Admit Petition for Certiorari and Most Sincere Apology filed by petitioner. HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. RTC Order dated July 27, 2016, rollo, p. 36.
2.Rollo, pp. 36-38.
3.Id. at 30-33.
4.Id. at 41-43.
5. Citing People v. Justice Castañeda, Jr., et al., 723 Phil. 861, 869 (2013).
6.Rollo, pp. 60-62.
7.Id.