FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236380. April 23, 2018.]
GLENN TAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, WINSTON TAN, ARLENE TAN, AND ANGELES ABANTE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236380 (Glenn Tan v. People of the Philippines, Winston Tan, Arlene Tan, and Angeles Abante). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period. HESIcT
After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner due to procedural infirmities.
We agree with the CA that notwithstanding the fact that the trial court entertained the supplemental motion for reconsideration of petitioner by setting it on trial and requiring the respondent to file its comment, the CA was not precluded from treating it as a second motion for reconsideration. 1 Petitioner's receipt on August 19, 2016 of the July 11, 2016 Order denying his motion for reconsideration should have put him on guard to prudently and timely avail of the proper remedy of certiorari before the CA and not merely rely on the trial court to "warn [him] that the Supplemental MR could be treated by [the trial court] as a second MR." 2 Thus, the 60-day period should not be reckoned from petitioner's receipt on February 28, 2017 of the denial of his supplemental/second motion for reconsideration. The 60-day period shall be reckoned from the trial court's denial of his first motion for reconsideration. We hold that to rule otherwise would promote indefinite delays in cases. 3
We stress that the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a petition for certiorari is mandatory and jurisdictional, and should not be trifled with. 4
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 30, 2017 and January 5, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 150861 are AFFIRMED. AcICHD
The petitioner's manifestation stating that an error in paragraph 12 of the petition for review on certiorari dated February 22, 2018 was made and corrected as these cases are now currently pending before the Regional Trial Court-QC, Branch No. 83 whose Presiding Judge is Ralph Lee, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Club Filipino, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015, 745 SCRA 636, where the Court was also not precluded from treating the petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration despite the fact that it initially granted petitioner's motion for leave to file and admit further pleading/motion and noted the supplemental motion for reconsideration.
2.Rollo, p. 21.
3. See San Juan, Jr. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 167321, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 410, 424.
4.Communication and Information Systems Corporation v. Mark Sensing Australia, Pty. Ltd., G.R. No. 192159, January 25, 2017. Citation omitted.