G.R. No. 207347. January 22, 2014

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 207347, January 22, 2014 ] ROSENIO MACABANTI, PETITIONER, VERSUS NORTH SEA MARINE SERVICES CORPORATION AND V-SHIPS LEISURE INC., RESPONDENTS.

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Resolutions dated January 28, 2013[1] and May 17, 2013[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128028. The CA denied the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Rosenio Macabanti on the ground that the amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court no longer allows any extension of the 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari.

Macabanti had until January 2, 2013 to file a petition for certiorari before the CA after the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denied his motion for reconsideration. On January 2, 2013, Macabanti's counsel filed instead a motion[3] for a 15-day extension of the reglementary period to file the petition for certiorari so that it can be signed by Macabanti who was out of the country and will return on January 11, 2013.

As aforesaid, the CA denied the motion for extension. The full text of the assailed CA Resolution dated January 28, 2013 reads:

We resolve to deny the Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition. A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC issued on 12 December 2007 had amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by deleting the provision that allows an extension of time beyond the sixty (60) days reglementary period.

In this case, the period to file the petition already expired on 02 January 2013; so much so that the petition that was filed on 17 January 2013 cannot be admitted.

In view thereof, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED.[4]

The CA denied Macabanti's motion for reconsideration in the assailed Resolution dated May 17, 2013, to wit:

As heretofore stated, the Rules of Court no longer allow any extension of the period to file a petition for certiorari. This is a policy statement expressed in A.M. 07-7-12-SC which this Court cannot ignore.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.[5]

Hence, the instant petition.We will address the issue of whether the CA erred in denying Macabanti's motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari on the ground that the amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court no longer allows any extension of the 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari.

Macabanti claims that the motion for extension was filed because he was out of the country and his absence prevents him from signing the certification against forum shopping of the petition for certiorari that must be filed within the reglementary period. He says that because of this exceptional fact, the CA should have granted his motion for extension.[6]

In their comment, respondents counter that the instant petition should be dismissed since Macabanti's failure to file a petition for certiorari before the CA within the 60-day reglementary period is a fatal procedural defect.[7]

We rule in favor of Macabanti and grant his petition.

True, the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC[8] to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court deleted the provision in the old Section 4, Rule 65 allowing an extension of the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari. This deletion is shown by comparing the old and the new provisions of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court:

[OLD] SEC. 4. x x x

No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.

[NEW] 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 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 the territorial area as defined by the Supreme 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 court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, 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 omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Recently, in Maria Lourdes D. Castells and Shalimar Centi-Mandanas v. Saudi Arabian Airlines,[9] we held that despite the rigid wording of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, disallowing an extension of the 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari, courts may nevertheless extend said period, subject to their sound discretion, to wit:

In view of the foregoing, despite the rigid wording of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC - which now disallows an extension of the 60-day reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari — courts may nevertheless extend the same, subject to its sound discretion. x x x

In Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc.,[10] we also held that under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. But under exceptional circumstances and subject to the court's sound discretion, the said 60-day period may be extended, to wit:

To reiterate, under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation, 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.

Thus, the CA should have exercised its sound discretion and granted the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari filed by Macabanti's counsel. Since Macabanti was then out of the country and was due to return only on January 11, 2013, he could not sign the required verification and certification against forum shopping of the petition for certiorari that must be filed on January 2, 2013. This fact calls for the application of the exception to the general rule that a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days from notice of the assailed resolution, the NLRC Resolution denying Macabanti's motion for reconsideration. In our view, Macabanti's counsel prudently sought an extension of the reglementary period rather than risk outright dismissal of a timely filed petition for certiorari but without Macabanti's signature on the required verification and certification against forum shopping.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the instant petition and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated January 28, 2013 and May 17, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 128028. We GRANT the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Rosenio Macabanti before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to ADMIT the petition for certiorari filed on January 17, 2013 and CONDUCT further proceedings.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

---

[1] Rollo, pp. 20-21. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Mario V. Lopez.[2] Id. at 15-16.
[3] Id. at 17-19.
[4] Id. at 20-21.
[5] Id. at 15.
[6] Id. at 8-9, 11.
[7] Id. at 40-41.
[8] Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court, December 4, 2007.
[9] G.R. No. 188514, August 28, 2013, p. 5.
[10] G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 738, 749-750.