Procedural lapse of belatedly filing a motion for extension and comment

On the first issue, the Supreme Court notes that in its September 9, 2002 Order, the trial court gave petitioner ten (10) days to file its comment to Angeless Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. While petitioner claims that it received the Order only on September 21, 2002, Angeles counters that petitioner received it on September 12, 2002. The Supreme Court is more inclined to believe Angeless allegation since the trial court itself declared in its Order dated October 10, 2002 that the Order dated September 9, 2002 was personally served upon petitioner on September 12, 2002. Thus, petitioner had until September 22, 2002 within which to file its comment or to request for an extension of time. Consequently, petitioners motion for extension and comment were not seasonably filed and such procedural lapse binds petitioner. (G.R. No. 163785; December 27, 2007)