ON Oct. 8, 2014, 21 days after receipt of the NLRC resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner Dennis M. Concejero filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari asking for 15 days or until Oct. 23, 2014 to file his petition.
On Nov. 3, 2014, the CA promulgated a resolution dismissing the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 for failure of petitioner to file his petition.
Meanwhile, on Oct. 23, 2014, petitioner’s counsel filed a manifestation and motion stating that in filing a motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari, he overlooked Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides a period of 60 days to file a petition for certiorari. Hence, his last day to file the petition was on Nov. 22, 2014.
On Nov. 24, 2014 (Nov. 22 being a Saturday), petitioner filed his petition for certiorari with the CA. On June 18, 2015, the CA promulgated a resolution that simply “noted” petitioner’s manifestation and motion and ordered the corresponding entry of the resolution of Nov. 3, 2014.
On June 18, 2015, it became final and executory.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration from the resolution dated June 18, 2015, which was denied by the CA. Is the denial justified?
Ruling: No.
Petitioner had 60 days to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Since petitioner received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on Sept. 23, 2014, he had until Nov. 22, 2014 (the 60th day) within which to file his petition. However, Nov. 22, 2014 fell on a Saturday; hence, petitioner had until the next working day or until Nov. 24, 2014 (Monday) to file the petition under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.
x x x
In the resolution dated November 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case because petitioner failed to file his petition for certiorari on October 23, 2014 as prayed for in his earlier motion for extension, even if the 60-day period to file the petition under Section 4, Rule 65 had not lapsed.
The Court finds that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case on Nov. 3, 2014 before the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari expired. Even if petitioner, who sought an extension of 15 days, or until Oct. 23, 2014 to file the petition for certiorari, failed to file the petition on Oct. 23, 2014, the case, however, was not yet dismissible because petitioner was entitled to a 60-day period within which to file the petition and had until Nov. 24, 2014 to file it. The records show that petitioner timely filed his petition on Nov. 24, 2014.
The CA should have noted the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari seeking an extension of 15 days, considering that petitioner had 60 days within which to file the petition.
Since the appellate court dismissed the case on Nov. 3, 2014, when petitioner filed his manifestation and motion explaining that in filing the motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari, he overlooked Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides a period of 60 days to file a petition for certiorari, the appellate court could have recalled its resolution dated Nov. 3, 2014 when petitioner timely filed his petition.
However, in the resolution dated June 18, 2015, the appellate court merely noted petitioner’s manifestation and motion on the ground that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of its resolution dated Nov. 3, 2014, dismissing the case, even if the records showed that petitioner filed his petition for certiorari on time.
And, in the same resolution dated June 18, 2015, the appellate court directed that the entry of the resolution dated Nov. 3, 2014 be effected by the division clerk of court. Moreover, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated June 18, 2015 was denied in the resolution dated May 4, 2016.
In effect, petitioner was deprived of the right to file his petition within the 60-day period.
Hence, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 137479 on Nov. 3, 2014, even if the petition for certiorari was timely filed (Peralta, J., SC 2nd Division, Dennis M. Concejero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 22362, September 11, 2017).