This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27] we held that the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty days from notice of the judgment or order denying the motion for reconsideration. However, the deletion of the provisions in Rule 65 pertaining to extension of time did not make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. The Court observed that if this had been 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." In the absence of such prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the court's sound discretion.[28] | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In this regard, the Court's ruling in the recent case of Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc.) v. Court of Appeals[14] is instructive, to wit:In Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., 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 Metis Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 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 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 which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days. Under exceptional cases, however, and as held in Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, 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." | |||||
|
2015-03-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In relaxing the rules and allowing an extension, Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[33] reiterated the necessity for the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation[34] for the failure to file the petition for certiorari within the 60-day period. | |||||