practice court cases

7/27/2019 Practice Court Cases

1/24

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 185220 July 27, 2009

LAGUNA METTS CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ARIES C. CAALAM and GERALDINE ESGUERRA, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J .:

This petition arose from a labor case filed by private respondents Aries C. Caalam and GeraldineEsguerra against petitioner Laguna Metts Corporation (LMC). The labor arbiter decided in favor of

private respondents and found that they were illegally dismissed by LMC. On appeal, however, theNational Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the labor arbiter in a decisiondated February 21, 2008. Private respondents motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolutiondated April 30, 2008.

Counsel for private respondents received the April 30, 2008 resolution of the NLRC on May 26,2008. On July 25, 2008, he filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari under Rule65 of the Rules of Court. The motion alleged that, for reasons stated therein, the petition could notbe filed in the Court of Appeals within the prescribed 60-day period. Thus, a 15-day extension periodwas prayed for.

In a resolution dated August 7, 2008, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and gave private

respondents a non-extendible period of 15 days within which to file their petition for certiorari. LMCmoved for the reconsideration of the said resolution claiming that extensions of time to file a petitionfor certiorari are no longer allowed under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by

A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 4, 2007. This was denied in a resolution dated October 22,2008. According to the appellate court, while the amendment of the third paragraph of Section 4,Rule 65 admittedly calls for stricter application to discourage the filing of unwarranted motions forextension of time, it did not strip the Court of Appeals of the discretionary power to grant amotion for extension in exceptional cases to serve the ends of justice.

Aggrieved, LMC now assails the resolutions dated August 7, 2008 and October 22, 2008 of theCourt of Appeals in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It contends that theCourt of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted private respondents motionfor extension of time to file petition for certiorari as the Court of Appeals had no power to grant

something that had already been expressly deleted from the rules.

We agree.

Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mereexpediency of claiming substantial merit. As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specificacts or for taking certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless


2/24

delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules areregarded as mandatory.

In De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals, we ruled:

Section 4 of Rule 65 prescribes a period of 60 days within which to file a petition for certiorari. The

60-day period is deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and toprepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period wasspecifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights ofthe parties to a speedy disposition of their case.(emphasis supplied)

While the proper courts previously had discretion to extend the period for filing a petition for certioraribeyond the 60-day period, the amendments to Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC disallowedextensions of time to file a petition for certiorari with the deletion of the paragraph that previouslypermitted such extensions.

Section 4, Rule 65 previously read:

SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days fromnotice of the judgment or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of thedenial of said motion.

The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lowercourt or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdictionover the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appealswhether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid ofits appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unlessotherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by theCourt of Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and inno case exceeding 15 days. (emphasis supplied)

With its amendment under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, it now reads:

SEC. 4. When and where to file petition. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) daysfrom notice of the judgment or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timelyfiled, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from thenotice of the denial of the motion.

If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board,an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over theterritorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals or withthe Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the courts appellate jurisdiction. lavvphil If thepetition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by lawor these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

In election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shallbe filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.


3/24

As a rule, an amendment by the deletion of certain words or phrases indicates an intention tochange its meaning. It is presumed that the deletion would not have been made if there had been nointention to effect a change in the meaning of the law or rule. The amended law or rule shouldaccordingly be given a construction different from that previous to its amendment. If the Courtintended to retain the authority of the proper courts to grant extensions under Section 4 of Rule 65,the paragraph providing for such authority would have been preserved. The removal of the said

paragraph under the amendment by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC of Section 4, Rule 65 simply meant thatthere can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari.

The rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to prevent the use (orabuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice.Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file petition on compelling grounds did away with thefiling of such motions. As the Rule now stands,petitions for certiorari must be filed strictlywithin 60days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.

In granting the private respondents motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari, theCourt of Appeals disregarded A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. The action amounted to a modification, if notoutright reversal, by the Court of Appeals of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. In so doing, the Court of Appealsarrogated to itself a power it did not possess, a power that only this Court may exercise. For thisreason, the challenged resolutions dated August 7, 2008 and October 22, 2008 were invalid as theywere rendered by the Court of Appeals in excess of its jurisdiction.

Even assuming that the Court of Appeals retained the discretion to grant extensions of time to file apetition for certiorari for compelling reasons, the reasons proffered by private respondents counseldid not qualify as compelling. Heavy workload is relative and often self-serving Standing alone, it isnot a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day rule.

As to the other ground cited by private respondents counsel, suffice it to say that it was a bareallegation unsubstantiated by any proof or affidavit of merit. Besides, they could have filed thepetition on time with a motion to be allowed to litigate in forma pauperis. While social justice requiresthat the law look tenderly on the disadvantaged sectors of society, neither the rich nor the poor has a

license to disregard rules of procedure. The fundamental rule of human relations enjoins everyone,regardless of standing in life, to duly observe procedural rules as an aspect of acting with justice,giving everyone his due and observing honesty and good faith. For indeed, while technicalitiesshould not unduly hamper our quest for justice, orderly procedure is essential to the success of thatquest to which all courts are devoted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The resolutions dated August 7, 2008 and October22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104510 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE andthe petition in the said case is ordered DISMISSED for having been filed out of time.

SO ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNOChief JusticeChairperson


4/24

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the aboveresolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of theopinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

Footnotes

1In particular, Caalam and Esguerra who were allegedly employed with LMC as a machineoperator and an inspector, respectively, filed a case for illegal dismissal, regularization andnon-payment of service incentive leave with claims for full backwages and payment of moraland exemplary damages and attorneys fees against LMC.

2Annex "D" of petition. Rollo, pp. 26-29.

3Specifically, the motion cited "lack of material time occasioned by voluminous pleadingsthat have to be written and numerous court appearances to be undertaken" by privaterespondents counsel and "lack of funds" on the part of the private respondents as thereasons in support thereof. Id., pp. 26-27.

4The last day of the 60-day period was on July 25, 2008, the day the motion was filed.

5Supra note 2, p. 27. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 104510.

6Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate JusticesEdgardo P. Cruz (retired) and Fernanda Lampas Peralta of the Seventh Division of the Courtof Appeals. Rollo, p. 18.

7The amendments took effect on December 27, 2007.

8Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 83 (2002).

9Gonzales v. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1653, 30 July 2007, 528 SCRA 490.

10G.R. 147912, 26 April 2006, 488 SCRA 351, citing Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, supra.

11Per A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC effective September 1, 2000.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt1


5/24

12Id.

13See Niere v. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Br. II, 153 Phil. 450 (1973).

14See Section 5(5), Article VIII, Constitution.

15Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, supra.

16Id.

17See Article 19, Civil Code.

18Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, supra.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#rnt12


6/24

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

MID-ISLANDS POWER

GENERATION CORPORATION,Petitioner,

versus

COURT OF APPEALS, POWER

ONE CORPORATION, ISLANDS

GRID NETWORK PHILIPPINES,

INC., DAVID TAN, and MANUEL

LAURON,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 189191

Present:

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,

BRION,PEREZ,SERENO, and

REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:

February 29, 2012x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the 23 December 2008 and 23 June 2009

Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA). The core issue at bench is whether the

CA had the authority to grant a Motion for Extension to file a petition forcertiorari, in the light of our Resolution in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which took effect

on 27 December 2007.

Facts
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn1


7/24

The case stems from the Complaint for injunction with urgent prayer for

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 70957-SJ)

filed by MindoroTech Services Inc. (MindoroTech) and petitioner Mid-Islands

Power Generation Corporation (Mid-Islands Power) against respondents PowerOne Corporation (Power One), Islands Grid Network Philippines, Inc. (Islands

Grid), David Tan (Tan), and Manuel Lauron (Lauron).

Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ORMECO), an electric

distribution cooperative, entered into an Electric Supply Agreement (ESA) with

Power One as the formers new electric power provider. Pursuant to the agreement,

Power One was permitted to install, construct or acquire, and operate an electric

generating facility in Oriental Mindoro. It was also authorized to assign its rights,

interests, and obligations under the ESA to an affiliate or to a special purpose

corporation that it may organize for the project (project company). Furthermore,

Power One was empowered to form other corporations for the purpose of

undertaking various aspects of the ESA. As part of the agreement, it was given the

right to use the existing Calapan Diesel Power Plant in Oriental Mindoro.

Power One invited several potential partners to join it in a business ventureinvolving the management and operations of its ESA with ORMECO and its

existing ESA with Central Negros Electric Cooperative (CENECO). Under the

proposal, they would form a joint venture to be called Mid-Islands Power

Generation Corporation. This proposed project company would assume all the

interests, rights, and obligations of Power One under its ESA with CENECO

(ESA-CENECO) and with ORMECO (ESA-ORMECO). Consequently, on 4 June

2004, Power One entered into a Memorandum of Agreement

[2]

(MOA) with VictorPascual, Faustino Lim, Philip Uy, and Viscal Development Corporation. The MOA

stated that the new company, Mid-Islands Power, would own and implement Phase

1 of ESA-CENECO, which involved existing and proposed power plants in Alijis

District, Bacolod City; and Phase 1 of ESA-ORMECO, which concerned the

existing Calapan Diesel Power Plant in Calapan City.


8/24

Under the agreement, the new partners would subscribe to 69.5%; Power

One, through its affiliate company Islands Grid, to 29.5%; and a certain Kenneth

Uy, to the remaining 1% of the outstanding capital stock of Mid-Islands Power. It

was further stipulated that the management and operations of the newly organizedproject company, Mid-Islands Power, would be the responsibility of the new co-

partners of Power One. Thus, on 15 October 2004, by virtue of an Assignment

Memorandum,[3]Power One assigned its two ESAs to Mid-Islands Power and

notified ORMECO accordingly. In turn, ORMECO acknowledged the assumption

by Mid-Islands Power of the rights, interests, and obligations of Power One under

the ESA-ORMECO.

In July 2005 Victor Pascual, Faustino Lim, Philip Uy, and Container

Corporation of the Philippines[4](collectively, Pascual et al.) entered into a

Revised Memorandum of Agreement[5](Revised MOA) with Power One, in which

the parties agreed to shelve the CENECO project. Instead, they decided to focus on

Phase 1 of the ORMECO project and to add Phase 2 of the ESA-ORMECO to their

joint venture. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that they would form an O & M

Company, which would operate and manage the Calapan Diesel Power Plant on

behalf of Mid-Islands Power. It was agreed that Pascual et al. would own and

subscribe to 80% and Power One, through Islands Grid, to 20% of the stocks of the

O & M Company that would be formed.

The business relations between Power One and Pascual et al. eventually

turned thorny. On various dates in May 2006, respondent Tanon behalf of Power

One sent correspondences[6]to Mid-Islands Power. An issue raised therein was

the latters inability to fulfill its commitment to complete certain aspects of theORMECO project within their set deadlines. Power One reiterated that the timely

completion of Phase 1 of the ESA would be critical to the achievement of their

profit goals. It insisted that Mid-Islands Power should decide and act faster so that

the delays in finishing the projects would be cut by half. For its part, Mid-Islands

Power broached several issues concerning its monetary advances, future financing
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn4


9/24

arrangements, and proposed revision of the provisions on shareholdings in their

Revised MOA. A further exchange of correspondences ensued,[7]with both parties

raising various concerns, such as lack of the required financing for the ORMECO

project; the inability of Pascual et al., through Mid-Islands Power, to completePhases 1 and 2 of the ORMECO project; and inefficiency in the management of

the Mid-Islands Power joint venture.

Consequently, in a demand letter[8]sent to Pascual et al. through Mid-

Islands, Power One asked for the specific performance of Pascual et al.s

obligations under the Revised MOA. Power One asserted that the continued delay

in finishing the ORMECO project had already resulted in a reduction of the

electricity generated to less than 50% of capacity. Power One then informed Mid-

Islands that their right to supply power to ORMECO and NPC, as well as to

occupy and operate the leased facilities of NAPOCOR, had not taken effect.

Power One alleged that it had already informed ORMECO that the

assignment of the ESA in favor of Mid-Islands Power had not taken effect as of 30

April 2006 because of the latters inability to fulfill its obligations under the

Revised MOA. Furthermore, Power One informed Mid-Islands Power thatORMECO had supposedly noticed that another company, MindoroTech, had been

operating the Calapan Diesel Power Plant in violation of the ESA. Power One thus

sought an explanation of the role of MindoroTech and demanded that Mid-Islands

provide a clear plan on how the latter would complete Phase 1 of the ORMECO

project. Subsequently, on 19 August 2006, Power One and Islands Grid barred

Mid-Islands Power and MindoroTech from entering the Calapan Diesel Power

Plant.

On 11 September 2006, MindoroTech and petitioner Mid-Islands Power

filed a Complaint (Civil Case No. 70957-SJ) against respondents Power One,

Islands Grid, Tan, and Lauron. The complainants argued that, since the interests,

rights, and obligations of respondents had already been transferred, respondents
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn8


10/24

must be restrained from preventing them from performing their lawful and valid

obligations under the ESA and the Revised MOA. Respondents opposed the

Complaint and argued that the assignment of the ESA-ORMECO did not become

effective, since certain conditions under the Revised MOA had not yet beenfulfilled. According to respondents, the Calapan Diesel Power Plant could not be

commercially operated unless the conditions were satisfied; and until due

consultation with ORMECO was held, and the latters approval obtained.

The Pasig City Regional Trial Court (Pasig RTC) issued a 72-hour

temporary restraining order (TRO) to Power One, Islands Grid, Tan, and Lauron.

At the continuation of the hearing on the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the

parties agreed to the policy of no touch, in which none of the parties would enter

the control and the engine rooms of the power plant. They also agreed to an interim

compromise operation of the power plant. In the meantime, the branch sheriff of

the Pasig RTC placed the operation of the power plant under the responsibility of

Mid-Islands Power and MindoroTech.

However, on 20 October 2006 and during the pendency of the Complaint

filed by MindoroTech and Mid-Islands Power, ORMECO filed a separateComplaint (Civil Case No. CV-06-5689) against Power One for specific

performance of contract, with an application for preliminary mandatory injunction

and damages before the RTC in Calapan City (Calapan RTC).[9]On the same day,

the trial court issued a 72-hour TRO commanding Power One to perform and

comply with the latters obligation to immediately operate the Calapan Diesel

Power Plant pursuant to the ESA-ORMECO. The Order also directed that, if

Power One failed to perform its obligation, ORMECO would be authorized tooperate the power plant. The sheriff of Calapan RTC eventually turned over to

ORMECO the operations of the power plant and removed Mid-Islands and

MindoroTech therefrom. According to the Calapan RTC judge, the TRO was

issued to safeguard public interest, because there was an impending brownout in

the whole province of Oriental Mindoro.[10]


11/24

On 6 November 2006, the Pasig RTC issued an Order[11]granting the prayer

of MindoroTech and Mid-Islands Power for the issuance of a writ of preliminary

injunction against Power One, Islands Grid, Tan, Lauron, and their representatives

and agents. According to the RTC, actual and imminent danger was present. If theemployees of complainants were prevented from operating the Calapan Diesel

Power Plant, there would be undue interference with the performance of the ESA,

which would in turn result in a power crisis in the area serviced by the Calapan

Diesel Power Plant. The Pasig RTC noted that public interest was involved in the

full and continuous supply of electricity in Oriental Mindoro. Thus, pursuant to the

writ, Mid-Islands Power and MindoroTech were allowed to reenter and operate the

Calapan Diesel Power Plant.

Thus, on the afternoon of 10 November 2006, the branch sheriff

implemented the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Pasig RTC, which

allowed Mid-Islands Power and MindoroTech to resume their operations at the

power plant. On that same day, however, the Calapan RTC issued a separate writ

of preliminary mandatory injunction against these two corporations. Counsel for

Power One then went to the power plant and demanded that Mid-Islands Power

and MindoroTech vacate the premises. As both parties tried to enforce the two

separate writs of preliminary injunction, which were issued by two different trial

courts, trouble at the power plant ensued. Eventually, the Calapan RTC sheriff

forcibly broke open the doors of the power plant and demanded that the personnel

of both corporations leave the premises.

Consequently, respondents assailed the Order of the Pasig RTC before the

CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 97243) through a Petition for Certiorari andProhibition.[12]They argued that the trial court did not have territorial jurisdiction

to issue the injunctive writ, because the acts sought to be enjoined had been

committed in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. On 10 December 2007, the CA issued a

Decision[13]sustaining the Order of the Pasig RTC. According to the appellate

court, the lockout indeed happened in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro; but since those
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn12


12/24

who had barred the employees of Mid-Islands Power merely acted pursuant to the

orders that officials of Power One issued from its principal office in Pasig City, the

acts sought to be restrained had actually been committed within the territorial

jurisdiction of the Pasig RTC. On 4 March 2008, the appellate court issued aResolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration of Power One and Islands

Grid. Afterwards, on 20 April 2009, the CA issued another Resolution ordering the

entry of judgment of its 10 December 2007 Decision andas the judgment was no

longer appealed to this Court subsequently ruled that the said CA Decision had

become final and executory on 2 April 2008.

Meanwhile, the Pasig RTC proceeded with the main action for injunction in

Civil Case No. 70957-SJ. On 29 September 2008, it rendered summary judgment

in favor of Mid-Islands Power and MindoroTech and made the preliminary

injunction it issued on 6 November 2006 permanent.[14]Pursuant to the Order,

Islands Grid and Power One were permanently enjoined from committing acts that

would tend to prevent Mid-Islands Power and MindoroTech from exercising and

performing the latter twos rights and obligations in operating the Calapan Diesel

Power Plant.

On 9 December 2008, Power One filed a Motion for Extension of time to

file its Petition for Certiorari with the CA and prayed for a 15-day extension.

According to Power One, the Petition would question the 29 September 2008

Order of the Pasig RTC granting a permanent injunction against the

former.[15]Power One claimed that on 10 October 2008, it received the Order that

gave it until 9 December 2008 to file a petition for certiorari. However, it posited

that the lawyer handling the case had left the firm, and that the other lawyers werenot able to act upon the Petition due to other equally important professional

undertaking.[16]Pending the CA resolution on the Motion for Extension, Power

One proceeded to file a Petition for Certiorari on 23 December 2008. The Motion

for Extension (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 106511) was eventually granted on 23

December 2008.[17]Mid-Islands Power opposed the Resolution of the CA and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftn15


13/24

argued that the Motion had been granted in violation of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. On

23 June 2009, the CA denied the Motion of Mid-Islands Power,[18]which

consequently filed the instant Petition.

I ssue

The sole issue presented before this Court is whether or not the CA

committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in

granting respondent Power Ones Motion for Extension.

Discussion

According to petitioner, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in

granting Power Ones Motion for Extension to file a petition for certiorari.

Petitioner argues that the amendment under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC had already

deleted the provision that allows an extension of time to file a petition under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, was previously worded thus:

SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. 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 isrequired or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the

denial of said motion.

The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts

or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the

Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined bythe Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not

the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in

aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-


14/24

judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall

be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for

compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis

supplied.)

In a Resolution dated 4 December 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc issued

A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which amended the aforecited provision as follows:

SEC. 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 motionis required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted

from the notice of the denial of the motion.

If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or

of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional

Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by theSupreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the

Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the courts appellate

jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicialagency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed

with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a

regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission onElections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

InLaguna Metts Corporationv. Court of Appeals,[19]we explained that the

reason behind the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC was to prevent the use

or abuse of the remedy of petition for certiorari in order to delay a case or even

defeat the ends of justice. We thus deleted the clause that allowed an extension of

the period to file a Rule 65 petition for compelling reasons. Instead, we deemed the

60-day period to file as reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over the

case and to prepare a petition that asserts grave abuse of discretion by a lower

court. The period was specifically set and limited in order to avoid any

unreasonable delay in the dispensation of justice, a delay that could violate the

constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case.


15/24

Consequently, we pronounced that when the CA granted the motion for extension,

it in effect disregarded and modified, if not outrightly reversed, the Supreme Court

En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. We then said that in so doing, the

appellate court arrogated unto itself a power it did not possess, a power that onlythis Court may exercise.[20]Consequently, we ruled that petitions for certiorari

must now be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the

order denying a motion for reconsideration.[21]

Nevertheless, in the more recent case ofDomdom v. Sandiganbayan, we

ruled that the deletion of the clause in Section 4, Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC

did not, ipso facto, make the filing of a motion for extension to file a Rule 65

petition absolutely prohibited. We held inDomdom that if absolute proscription

were intended, the deleted portion could have just simply been reworded to

specifically prohibit an extension of time to file such petition. Thus, because of the

lack of an express prohibition, we held that motions for extension may be allowed,

subject to this Courts sound discretion, and only under exceptional and

meritorious cases.

Indeed, we have relaxed the procedural technicalities introduced under A.M.No. 07-7-12-SC in order to serve substantial justice and safeguard strong public

interest. Thus, in Tan v. Ballena, we pronounced:

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 wouldresult in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice,

must always be 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. It is a far better and more prudent cause ofaction for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of

the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case on technicality

and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedydisposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of

justice. (Citations omitted.)


16/24

The present Petition involves one of those exceptional cases in which

relaxing the procedural rules would serve substantial justice and safeguard strong

public interest. It concerns the operations and management of the Calapan Diesel

Power Plant a power-generating facility that supplies electricity to OrientalMindoro. It was alleged that the dispute between the parties had already resulted in

a reduced generation of power, which was supposedly producing electricity at less

than 50% of its capacity. A TRO had already been issued previously, as there was

an impending brownout in the entire province of Oriental Mindoro. Consequently,

in order to protect strong public interest, this Court deems it appropriate and

justifiable to relax the amendment of Section 4, Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-7-12-

SC, concerning the reglementary period for the filing of a Rule 65 petition.

Considering that the imminent power crisis is an exceptional and meritorious

circumstance, the parties herein should be allowed to litigate the issues on the

merits. Furthermore, we find no significant prejudice to the substantive rights of

the litigants as respondent was able to file the Petition before the CA within the 15-

day extension it asked for. We therefore find no grave abuse of discretion

attributable to the CA when it granted respondent Power Ones Motion for

Extension to file its Petition for Certiorari.

As a final note, we convey our strong disapproval over the failure of Power

Ones lawyers to file the Petition within the reglementary period. The amendments

under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC were meant to be implemented strictly, with a view in

mind that the 60-day period to file is a reasonable and sufficient time to prepare a

Rule 65 petition. Workload and resignation of the lawyer handling the case are

insufficient reasons to justify the relaxation of the procedural rules. He should not

have left his client with this very critical piece of work hanging in midair. Were itnot for the exceptional nature of the case and the strong public interest involved

herein, we would have overturned the approval by the CA of the Motion to extend

the period to file a Rule 65 Petition.


17/24

WHEREFORE the Petition is DISMISSED. The 23 December 2008 and

23 June 2009 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106511 are

hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENOAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:


Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYESAssociate Justice

ATTESTATION


18/24

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the Opinion of the

Courts Division.


Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division

Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had

been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the

opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONAChief Justice

Petitioner alleges that respondents Islands Grid Network Philippines, Inc., David Tan, and Manuel Lauron were

not named petitioners in the Petition for Certiorari filed by Power One with the CA; that the appellate court, with

grave abuse of discretion, included them as petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 106511; and that petitioner included them

as named respondents ex abundanti ad cautelam. Records show that, indeed, Power One was the sole petitioner that

filed the Petition for Certiorari filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 106511.[1]The 23 June 2009 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 106511 was penned by CA Associate Justice Vicente S.E.

Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Ricardo R. Rosario.[2]Memorandum of Agreement, rollo, p. 158.[3]Rollo, p. 174.[4]The original party to the MOA was Viscal Development Corporation and not Container Corporation of the

Philippines (CCP). There is nothing in the records that would explain the reason for the CCPs substitution of Viscal

Development Corporation.[5]Rollo, p. 176.[6]Id. at 188-239.[7]Id.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref1


19/24

[8]Id. at240.[9]Investigation Report (Sapit v. Viray, A.M. No. P-07-2316, 7 December 2007) at 12, rollo, p. 692.[10]Id. at 8, rollo, p. 688.[11]Rollo, p. 331.[12]Id. at 515.[13]Id. at 568.[14]Order of Pasig RTC at 14, rollo, p. 97.[15]Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, first page (unpaginated), rollo, p. 35.[16]Id. at second page (unpaginated), rollo, p. 36.[17]Rollo, p. 31.[18]Id. at 33.[19]G.R. No. 185220, 27 July 2009, 594 SCRA 139.[20]Id. at 146.[21]Id.[22]G.R. No. 182382-83, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 528.[23]G.R. No. 168111, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 229, 248.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/189191.htm#_ftnref9


20/24

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 182382-83 February 24, 2010

JAIME S. DOMDOM, Petitioner,vs.HON. THIRD AND FIFTH DIVISIONS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT andTHE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J .:

By Affidavit of February 15, 2002, Hilconeda P. Abril, State Auditor V of the Commission on Audit

(COA) assigned at the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC), requested the Office of theOmbudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation on the transactions-bases of the claims of JaimeS. Domdom (petitioner) for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses as a Director of PCIC, thereceipts covering which were alleged to be tampered.1

After preliminary investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to chargepetitioner with nine counts of estafa through falsification of documents in view of irregularities in ninesupporting receipts for his claims for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses, after verificationwith the establishments he had transacted with. It thus directed the filing of the appropriateInformations with the Sandiganbayan.2

The Informations were separately raffled and lodged among the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan.

The First,Second and Fifth Divisions granted petitioners Motions for Consolidation of the casesraffled to them with that having the lowest docket number, SB-07-CRM-0052, which was raffled tothe Third Division.3

The Sandiganbayan Third Division disallowed the consolidation, however, by Resolutions datedFebruary 12 and May 8, 2008, it holding mainly that the evidence in the cases sought to beconsolidated differed4from that to be presented in the one which bore the lowest docket number. It isgathered from the records that the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division also denied petitioners Motion forConsolidation.5

Petitioner thus seeks relief from this Court via the present Petition for Certiorari, with prayer fortemporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the differentdivisions of the Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with the cases against him during thependency of this petition.6

Petitioner argues that, among other things, all the cases against him arose from substantiallyidentical series of transactions involving alleged overstatements of miscellaneous and extraordinaryexpenses.

Respondent People of the Philippines (People), in its Comment,7counters that petitioner failed to filea motion for reconsideration which is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari; that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt1


21/24

the petition was filed out of time since a motion for extension to file such kind of a petition is nolonger allowed; that consolidation is a matter of judicial discretion; and that the proceedings in thedifferent divisions of the Sandiganbayan may proceed independently as the Informations chargedseparate crimes committed on separate occasions.

In the meantime, the Court issued a TRO8enjoining all divisions of the Sandiganbayan from further

proceeding with the trial of the cases against petitioner until further orders.

Prefatorily, the People raises procedural questions which the Court shall first address.

Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for thefiling of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to grant an opportunity for the court a quo to correctany actual or perceived error attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factualcircumstances of the case.9

The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as where the order is a patentnullity because the court a quo had no jurisdiction; where the questions raised in the certiorariproceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those

raised and passed upon in the lower court; where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution ofthe question, and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of thepetitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; where, under the circumstances, a motionfor reconsideration would be useless; where the petitioner was deprived of due process and there isextreme urgency for relief; where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and thegrant of such relief by the trial court is improbable; where the proceedings in the lower court are anullity for lack of due process; where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had noopportunity to object; and where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest isinvolved.101av v phi l

The Court finds that the issue raised by petitioner had been duly raised and passed upon by theSandiganbayan Third Division, it having denied consolidation in two resolutions; that the issue callsfor resolution and any further delay would prejudice the interests of petitioner; and that the issue

raised is one purely of law, the facts not being contested. There is thus ample justification forrelaxing the rule requiring the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration.

On the Peoples argument that a motion for extension of time to file a petit ion for certiorari is nolonger allowed, the same rests on shaky grounds. Supposedly, the deletion of the following provisionin Section 4 of Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC11evinces an intention to absolutely prohibit motionsfor extension:

"No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason andin no case exceeding fifteen (15) days."

The full text of Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, reads:

Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) daysfrom notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial istimely 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.

If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board,an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over theterritorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt8


22/24

with the Sandiganbayan, whetheror not the same is in aid of the courts appellate jurisdiction. If thepetition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by lawor these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petitionshall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

(underscoring supplied)

That no mention is made in the above-quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of a motion forextension, unlike in the previous formulation, does not make the filing of such pleading absolutelyprohibited. If such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded tostate that "no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted." Absent such a prohibition,motions for extension are allowed, subject to the Courts sound discretion. The present petition maythus be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought and, at all events, given its merits.

In Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines,12the Court laid down the requisites for theconsolidation of cases, viz:

A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from thesame act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantiallyon the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated andthat a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of anyof the parties. (emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

The rule allowing consolidation is designed to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppressionor abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and to simplify the work of the trial courtin short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.

Thus, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Maalac, Jr.,13the Court disregarded the technical differencebetween an action and a proceeding, and upheld the consolidation of a petition for the issuance of awrit of possession with an ordinary civil action in order to achieve a more expeditious resolution ofthe cases.

In the present case, it would be more in keeping with law and equity if all the cases filed againstpetitioner were consolidated with that having the lowest docket number pending with the ThirdDivision of the Sandiganbayan. The only notable differences in these cases lie in the date of thetransaction, the entity transacted with and amountinvolved. The charge and core element are thesame estafa through falsification of documents based on alleged overstatements of claims formiscellaneous and extraordinary expenses. Notably, the main witness is also the same HilconedaP. Abril.

It need not be underscored that consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification ofproceedings which saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts, and a possible major

abbreviation of trial. It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim ofaffording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts.

Above all, consolidation avoids the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions in two or more caseswhich would otherwise require a single judgment.14

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Third Division of the Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED toallow the consolidation of the cases against petitioner for estafa through falsification of documentswith SB-07-CRM-0052, which has the lowest docket number pending with it. All other Divisions ofthe Sandiganbayan are accordingly ORDERED to forward the subject cases to the Third Division.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#fnt12


23/24

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:



RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTROAssociate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABADAssociate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

JOSE C. MENDOZAAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the conclusions in theabove Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of theopinion of the Court.


Footnotes

1Rollo, pp. 22-23.

2Id. at 52-66.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt1


24/24

3Id. at 96-102, 122, 213-214.

4Id. at 112, 232.

5Id. at 313-314.

6Id. at 9-21, 124-142.

7Id. at 272-291.

8Resolutions of September 2, 2008 and February 24, 2009; rollo, pp. 298-300, 315.

9Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of Primitivo Hernaez, G.R. No. 142913, August 9,2005, 466 SCRA 120, 127.

10Tan v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 570, 576-578 (1997).

11Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court; adopted on December 4,2007.

12G.R. No. 144374, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 597, 605.

13G.R. No. 145441, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 203, 213-214.

14Yu, Sr. v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development Enterprises, Inc., G.R. Nos.138701-02, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 618, 633.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_182382_2010.html#rnt3

practice court cases

Documents