REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH),
PETITIONER, VS. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES, INC., RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 192908,
August 22, 2012]
FACTS:
Two
cases were filed by the Republic seeking expropriation of certain properties in
the name of St. Vincent de Paul
Colleges, Inc. (St.
Vincent): (1) to
expropriate 1,992 square
meters out of
a total area
of 6,068 square meters of land
for the construction of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP); and
(2) to expropriate 2,450 square meters out of a total area of 9,039 square
meters, also belonging to St. Vincent.
Subsequently,
the Republic filed
in both cases
an amended complaint
alleging that the
subject land originated from a
free patent title and should be adjudicated to it without payment of just
compensation pursuant to Section
112 of Commonwealth
Act No. 141.
In 2005,
the Republic filed
a motion for
the issuance of an
order of expropriation
and was granted in
both two cases.
The trial court denied St.Vincent’s motion for reconsideration
granting expropriation.
The
lower court, however, modified its Order and required the Republic to
immediately pay St. Vincent in an amount equivalent to one hundred percent (100%)
of the value of the property sought to be expropriated.
The Republic moved for reconsideration but it
was denied. Seeking to avail the extraordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, the Republic filed with the CA a motion for
additional time of fifteen (15) days within which to file its petition. The CA
granted the motion in its Resolution dated April 30, 2009 and the Republic was
given a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days within which to file its
petition for certiorari.
The
Republic filed its petition for certiorari for having been issued an order with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. The
CA, motu proprio, issued a Resolution ordering the Republic to show cause why
its petition for certiorari should not be dismissed for being filed out of
time, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-7-12- SC.
The
Republic filed its Compliance with Explanation pleading for the relaxation of
the rules by reason of the
transcendental importance of
the issues involved
in the case
and in consideration of substantial justice.
The
CA rendered the
assailed resolution dismissing
the Republic’s petition
for certiorari on the ground
that the petition was filed out of time. The CA denied the Republic’s motion
for reconsideration. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether
the CA erred in denying the petition of certiorari for being filed out of time
RULING:
Yes. The Court notes that the CA Resolution dated
April 30, 2009, which initially granted the Republic’s motion for extension,
was premised on the mistaken notion that the petition filed by the latter was
one for petition for review as a mode of appeal. Thus, the CA granted extension
inasmuch as motions for this purpose are allowed by the rules. On this score
alone, the CA should have admitted the petition filed by the Republic since the
latter merely relied on its Resolution dated April 30, 2009 granting the
extension prayed for.
In
order to resolve the instant controversy, the Court deems it necessary to
discuss the relationship between its respective rulings in Laguna Metts
Corporation and Domdom with respect to the
application of the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC to Section
4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Before
said amendment, Section 4 of Rule 65 originally
provides that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60
days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.
It also states that “No extension of time
to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no
case exceeding fifteen (15) days.” However, such paragraph was deleted
in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. In interpreting said amendment, the
Court, in Laguna Metts Corporation, held that: The rationale for the amendments
under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to prevent the use (or abuse) 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 the filing of such motions. As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must
be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order
denying a motion for reconsideration.
However,
the case of Labao v. Flores subsequently laid down some of the exceptions to
the strict application of the rule, 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.
Under
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation case, the
general rule
is that a
petition for certiorari
must be filed within sixty (60)
days from notice of
the judgment, order, or
resolution sought to
be assailed. Under
exceptional circumstances, however, and subject to the
sound discretion of the Court, said period may be extended pursuant to Domdom, Labao and Mid-Islands Power
cases.
Accordingly,
the CA should have admitted the Republic’s petition: first, due to its own lapse when it granted the extension sought by
the Republic per Resolution dated April 30,2009; second, because of the public
interest involved, i.e., expropriation of private property for public
use(MCTEP); and finally, no undue prejudice or delay will be caused to either
party in admitting the petition.
Hence,
the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals is hereby ORDERED to REINSTATE
and ADMIT the petition for certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines.
No comments:
Post a Comment