CITY SERVICE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYEMENT, HON. UNDERSECRETARY REBECCA C. CHATO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR AIDA M. ESTABILLO AN…

On January 5, 2015, petitioner’s counsels filed a Motion for Extension^[1] of time to file petition for certiorari praying for an additional 60 days from January 9, 2015, the receipt of the assailed decision of the private respondent, or until March 10, 2015 within which to file the petition. Allegedly, petitioner’s counsels were not able to prepare the draft of the petition because they were recently engaged by petitioner and the records of the instant case still have to be transported from Cebu City to Pasay City. Thus, they prayed for an extension of 30 days from March 10, 2015 or until April 9, 2015 within which to file a petition for certiorari.

We are not convinced to grant the motion for extension of time. It must be noted that a motion for extension of time is not allowed in a petition for certiorari as held in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,^[2] to wit:

While the proper courts previously had discretion to extend the period for filing a petition for certiorari beyond the 60-day period, the amendments to Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC disallowed extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari with the deletion of the paragraph that previously permitted such extensions.

x x x

Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file petition on compelling grounds did away with the filing of such motions. As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. (Emphasis appears in the original text of the Decision)

In Labao v. Flores,^[3] the Supreme Court enumerated recognized exceptions to the above-mentioned rule and held that there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. Here, petitioner’s counsels failed to substantiate their claims that they had been recently engaged by petitioner and the records of this case are still in Cebu City. It is a basic rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.^[4]

Therefore, considering that a motion for extension of time is not allowed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and in the absence of proof showing that petitioner is entitled to the extension of time prayed for, said motion did not toll the running of the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari. Hence, the instant petition warrants an outright dismissal for being filed beyond the reglementary period.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Extension is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Villon, J., Chairperson and Zalameda, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pages 3-6.

^[2] G.R. No. 185220. July 27, 2009.

^[3] G.R. No. 187984. November 15, 2010.

^[4] See Bautista v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. 171464. November 27, 2013.