ALVIN CAPAL, PETITIONER, VS. CELESTINA LACSON, RESPONDENTS.

Capal versus Lacson

The Case

This is the case of Capal versus Lacson, a petition for review brought to the Supreme Court by Alvin Capal against Celestina Lacson. The decision is a short one, and it is short for a reason: the Court never reached the merits. What the Court decided is a single, hard procedural point — that the petition for review was filed after the extended period the Court itself had granted had already expired. The case matters to a reviewee because it is the cleanest illustration of the rule that an extension of time to file is not a suggestion but a deadline, and that a petition filed even one day late is dismissed outright, no matter how substantial its arguments might have been.

Procedural History

The case reached the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review. Before that petition could be filed, the Court issued a resolution dated February 26, 2014, granting the petitioner an additional period of fifteen days, counted from February 18, 2014, or until March 5, 2014, within which to file the petition for review. The petitioner, through his counsel, did not file within that extended period. He filed his petition for review only on March 24, 2014. The Court, acting on that filing, resolved the matter by dismissing the petition for review on the ground that it was filed out of time.

Facts

The material facts are few and entirely procedural. The petitioner, Alvin Capal, sought to bring a petition for review before the Supreme Court against Celestina Lacson. Because he needed more time, the Court, in a resolution dated February 26, 2014, granted him an additional fifteen days from February 18, 2014, or until March 5, 2014, to file the petition.

That grant placed a clear obligation on the petitioner, acting through his counsel, to comply with the directive and file the intended petition within the extended period. The extended period ended on March 5, 2014.

Instead of filing on or before that date, the petitioner filed his petition for review only on March 24, 2014. The filing thus came after the extended period had lapsed. The Court noted the delay plainly, observing that the petition was, obviously, late.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review was filed within the extended period granted by the Court in its resolution dated February 26, 2014.
• Whether or not a petition for review filed after the expiration of the extended period must be dismissed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory provision. It rests on the Court's own resolution granting the extension, which fixed the deadline the petitioner had to meet. The resolution dated February 26, 2014, granted the petitioner an additional period of fifteen days from February 18, 2014, or until March 5, 2014, to file the petition for review. That grant is the measure against which the timeliness of the filing is judged, and it is the reason the March 24, 2014 filing is late.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition for review was not filed within the extended period. The resolution granted the petitioner until March 5, 2014. He filed only on March 24, 2014. The Court put the point directly:

However, petitioner filed his Petition for Review only on March 24, 2014. Obviously, it is late.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed. Having granted the extension, the Court expected the petitioner, through his counsel, to comply with the directive and file within the extended period. Because the petition came after that period had run, the Court dismissed it for having been filed out of time. The Court's dispositive language leaves no room for qualification:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review, having being filed out of time, is DISMISSED.

The Court did not weigh the merits of the petition, did not relax the rules in the petitioner's favor, and did not treat the delay as excusable. The deadline set by the Court governed, and the filing fell outside it.

Doctrine

Three rules a Bar candidate should be able to write in an answer:

• An extension granted by the Court is a deadline, not a discretion. When the Court grants a party an additional period to file a petition for review, the party, through counsel, is bound to file within that period. The grant carries with it the duty of compliance.
• A petition filed after the extended period is filed out of time and is dismissed. The Court does not reach the merits of a petition that misses the deadline it itself fixed. Late filing is a ground for dismissal in itself.
• The deadline runs from the date fixed in the resolution. Here the period ran from February 18, 2014, and ended on March 5, 2014. A filing on March 24, 2014 came after the period had lapsed, and the Court said so in one line: obviously, it is late.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review because it was filed out of time, and the respondent, Celestina Lacson, prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a petition for review filed after the extended period granted by the Court is late, and it is dismissed. Examiners use this case to test whether a student knows that a granted extension is a hard deadline and that timeliness is jurisdictional in practice — the Court never reaches the merits of a late petition.