View full case

REPUBLIC v. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways, questioning the resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108499. The case arises from two cases filed by the Republic seeking expropriation of properties owned by St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. In Civil Case No. 0062-04, the Republic sought to expropriate a portion of land for the construction of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project. In Civil Case No. 0100-04, the Republic sought to expropriate another portion of land that adjoins the property subject of Civil Case No. 0062-04. The Republic filed an amended complaint alleging that the subject land originated from a free patent title and should be adjudicated to it without payment of just compensation. The trial court granted the Republic's motion for the issuance of an order of expropriation but did not rule on just compensation. St. Vincent later claimed entitlement to just compensation. The Republic attempted to implement the expropriation order, which resulted in a demand from St. Vincent to vacate the property. The Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, but it was denied. The Republic then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was dismissed for being filed out of time. The CA later denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration. The Republic now questions the dismissal on the ground that it relied in good faith on the CA resolution granting an extension of time to file its petition. The only issue to be resolved is whether the CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the Republic's petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for review is allowed.

  2. Whether the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is absolutely prohibited.

  3. Whether motions for extensions are allowed, subject to the Court's sound discretion.

  4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for Extension to file a Petition for Certiorari.

  5. Whether or not the CA should have admitted the Republic's petition due to its own lapse, the public interest involved, and the absence of undue prejudice or delay.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for review is allowed.

  2. The filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not absolutely prohibited. The deletion of the clause in Section 4, Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC did not make the filing of such motion absolutely prohibited. Motions for extensions may be allowed, subject to the Court's sound discretion, and only under exceptional and meritorious cases.

  3. Motions for extension to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are allowed, subject to the Court's sound discretion. The present petition may be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought and, given its merits.

  4. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for Extension to file a Petition for Certiorari.

  5. The CA should have admitted the Republic's petition due to its own lapse, the public interest involved, and the absence of undue prejudice or delay.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court removed the provision allowing extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari.

  • The removal of the provision indicating the authority to grant extensions under Section 4 of Rule 65 signifies that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari.

  • The purpose of the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is to prevent the use or abuse of the petition for certiorari to delay a case or defeat the ends of justice.

  • However, the case of Domdom states that the deletion of the provision does not absolutely prohibit motions for extension and that a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari is still allowed.

  • The sixty (60)-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is non-extendible, except under exceptional and meritorious cases.

  • The exceptions to the strict observance of the sixty (60)-day period include: most persuasive and weighty reasons, relief from injustice not commensurate with the failure to comply with the procedure, good faith by immediately paying within a reasonable time, special or compelling circumstances, merits of the case, cause not entirely attributable to fault or negligence, lack of showing that the review is frivolous and dilatory, no unjust prejudice to the other party, fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault, peculiar legal and equitable circumstances, substantial justice and fair play, importance of the issues involved, exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all attendant circumstances.

  • 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.

  • Under exceptional circumstances, subject to the sound discretion of the Court, the period for filing a petition for certiorari may be extended.

  • The admission of a petition for certiorari may be warranted in cases involving public interest or expropriation of private property for public use.

  • The CA should proceed with the case with dispatch to prevent undue prejudice or delay.