Non-extendible period under Rule 65; exceptions

Date Published:
In Macabanti v. North Sea Marine Services (G.R. No. 207347, January 22, 2014), the Supreme Court taught that 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 (G.R. No. 188514), the Supreme Court 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. (G.R. No. 192908), the Supreme Court 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.
Therefore, in that case of Macabanti v. North Sea Marine Services, the Court of Appeals 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.The above 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. In the view of the Court, 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.
ADDITIONAL READINGS:

[1] Jurisdiction of Philippine courts - Project Jurisprudence.