DIGEST/KAY MARIE BOLANDO/PATES V. COMELEC AND ALMIRANTE GR NO. 184915

NILO T. PATES
v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EMELITA B. ALMIRANTE

FACTS:

Petitioner asks in his "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Reiteration for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order" to reverse the dismissal of his petition, arguing that the petition was seasonably filed under the fresh period rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases decided beginning the year 2005.

"Fresh Period" refers to the original period provided under the Rules of Court counted from notice of the ruling on motion for reconsideration by the tribunal below, without deducting the period for the preparation and filing of the motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner claims, historically, the fresh period rule was the prevailing rule in filing petitions for certiorari. He continues that this Court changed this rule when it promulgated the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Circular No. 39-98, which both provided for the filing of petitions within the remainder of the original period, the "remainder" being the original period less the days used up in preparing and filing a motion for reconsideration.

A reading of the ruling in cases that applied the fresh period rile shows that the Court has consistently held that the order or resolution denying the motion for reconsideration or new trial is considered as the final order finally disposing of the case, and the date of its receipt by a party is the correct reckoning point for counting the period for appellate review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Fresh Period Rule applies to petitions filed under Rule 64.

RULING:

The Court finds the motion for reconsideration not meritorious.

Section 7, Article IX -A of the Constitution provides that unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.

For this reason, the Rules of Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari, subject to the exception clause - "except as herein provided".

The Court held that petitioner has not challenged the conclusion of the court that his petition was filed outside the period required by Sec. 3, Rule 64; he merely insists that the fresh period rule applicable to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should likewise apply to petitions for certiorari of COMELEC ruling filed under Rule 64. However, two rules cannot be equated for they existed as separate rules for substantive reasons. Procedurally, the most patent difference between the two - the exception that Section 2, Rule 64 refers to - is Section 3 which provides for a special period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from decisions or rulings of the COMELEC en banc.

Thus, as a matter of law, the Court's ruling of November 11, 2008 to dismiss the petition for late filing cannot but be correct. 

Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The Constitution clearly provides that "all persons shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies", the adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules.

There have been some instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity". A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.

Petitioner presented no exceptional circumstance or any compelling reason to warrant the non-application of Sec. 3, Rule 64 to his petition. He failed to explain why his filing was late. Other than his appeal to history, uniformity and convenience, he did not explain why we should adopt and apply the fresh period rule to an election case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The resolution of November 11, 2008 is hereby declared FINAL.