SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244230. March 11, 2019.]
PHILMETAL PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner,vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244230 (Philmetal Products, Inc. v. The Court of Appeals and Grandspan Development Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the November 14, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157590 for failure of petitioner Philmetal Products, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA gravely abused its discretion in denying its Motion for Extension to File Petition for Certiorari3 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Rule 65 Petition).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the grounds proffered by petitioner in seeking an extension to file the Rule 65 Petition were not sufficient to merit the granting of the afore-mentioned motion. 4 Settled is the rule that a Rule 65 petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed, 5 subject to certain exceptions, 6 none of which obtains in this case.
Moreover, the Rule 65 Petition is likewise dismissible for petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the CA prior to availing the remedy of certiorari. Corollary, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. 7
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
2.Id. at 23-26. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
3. Dated September 11, 2018; id. at 72-75.
4. See id. at 25.
5. See Castells v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, 716 Phil. 667, 674 (2013); citation omitted. See also Section 4, Rule 65 of the RULES OF COURT, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which provides:
Section 4. When and where to file the petition. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion[.]
6. "[T]here are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, 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." (Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. CA, 725 Phil. 590, 600-601 [2014]; citation omitted.)
7.Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration, 311 Phil. 795, 799 (1995).