This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Republic v. St. Vincent De Paul Colleges, Inc.[29] clarified the "conflict" between the rulings in Laguna Metts Corporation[30] and Domdom,[31] in that the former is the general rule while the latter is the exception, thus: What seems to be a "conflict" is actually more apparent than real. A reading of the foregoing rulings leads to the simple conclusion that Laguna Metts Corporation involves a strict application of the general rule that petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Domdom, on the other hand, relaxed the rule and allowed an extension of the sixty (60)-day period subject to the Court's sound discretion.[32] (Emphasis in the original) | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We deleted the clause in Section 4, Rule 65 that permitted extensions of the period to file petitions for certiorari, since sixty (60) days is more than ample time to sufficiently prepare for filing.[33] | |||||
|
2014-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc.[22] we had the occasion to settle the seeming conflict on various jurisprudence touching upon the issue of whether the period for filing a petition for certiorari may be extended. In said case we stated that the general rule, as laid down in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[23] is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC[24] where no provision for the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari exists, unlike in the original Section 4 of Rule 65[25] which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.[26] Under exceptional cases, however, and as held in Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan,[27] the 60-day period may be extended subject to the court's sound discretion. In Domdom, we stated that the deletion of the provisions in Rule 65 pertaining to extension of time did not make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. "If such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded to state that 'no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted.' Absent such a prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the court's sound discretion."[28] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.[13] While there are recognized exceptions[14] to such strict observance, 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.[15] | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| 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[27] 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. As instructively held in Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc.:[28] | |||||