This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-03-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We find that the CA correctly ruled that the petition for review was filed out of time based on our clarification in A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC that the 15-day extension period prayed for should be tacked to the original period and commences immediately after the expiration of such period.[14] Thus, counting 15 days from the expiration of the period which was on May 19, 2007, the petition filed on June 5, 2007 was already two days late. However, we find the circumstances obtaining in this case to merit the liberal application of the rule in the interest of justice and fair play. | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| However, according to the same circular, the petition for review on certiorari was indeed filed out of time. The provision states that in case a motion for extension is granted, the due date for the extended period shall be counted from the original due date, not from the next working day on which the motion for extension was filed. In Luz v. National Amnesty Commission,[4] we had occasion to expound on the matter. In that case, we held that the extension granted by the court should be tacked to the original period and commences immediately after the expiration of such period. | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The argument fails. A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC[17] issued on February 29, 2000 is clear. It provides that "[a]ny extension of time to file the required pleading should . . . be counted from the expiration of the period . . ." The extension should thus be tacked to the original period, to commence immediately after the expiration of such period. The court has no discretion to reckon the commencement of the extension from a date later than the expiration of such original period, not even if the expiry date is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.[18] | |||||