PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. HON. ANGELO C. PEREZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DESIGNATED JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 35, GAPAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA, AND RUFINO DO…

People versus Perez

The Case

This is a special civil action in the Supreme Court arising from a criminal case in Gapan City, Nueva Ecija. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, asked the Supreme Court to review a ruling of the Regional Trial Court, while the private complainant, Rosalinda Vda. De Velarde, filed her own petition for certiorari. The case matters because it settles two hard procedural rules every litigator must know: the sixty-day period to file a petition for certiorari is non-extendible, and the full payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, presided over by the respondent judge, the Honorable Angelo C. Perez. That court issued an order dated April 11, 2012, which the private complainant received on April 23, 2012. From that order, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an ad cautelam motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, asking for fifteen more days from June 22, 2012, or until July 7, 2012. While that motion was pending, the private complainant, through a private prosecutor and with the conformity of the Solicitor General, filed her own petition for certiorari on July 9, 2012. Both matters reached the Supreme Court, which resolved them in this decision.

Facts

The private complainant received a copy of the trial court's order of April 11, 2012 on April 23, 2012. Counting sixty days from that notice, she had until June 22, 2012 within which to file a petition for certiorari.

The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing the petition within that period, filed a motion for extension, seeking fifteen additional days, or until July 7, 2012. The private complainant, for her part, filed her petition for certiorari only on July 9, 2012, which was beyond the sixty-day period. Her petition was not filed on behalf of the Office of the Solicitor General, and she did not pay the required docket and other lawful fees.

The Court noted that the private complainant was no longer represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, which alone was exempt from paying docket and other lawful fees. Her petition was therefore both late and unpaid.

Issues

• Whether or not the sixty-day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be extended by the courts.
• Whether or not the private complainant's petition for certiorari, filed beyond the sixty-day period, may be given due course.
• Whether or not the private complainant's failure to pay the required docket and other lawful fees prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction over her petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

Section 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 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.

This provision fixes the sixty-day period and, after the amendment, no longer allows any extension, which is fatal to the motion for extension.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the sixty-day period is non-extendible. The amendment deleted the paragraph that previously allowed extensions, and the Court explained that the removal of that paragraph meant there can no longer be any extension of the sixty-day period. The rationale is to prevent the use or abuse of the petition for certiorari to delay a case or defeat the ends of justice. The motion for extension was therefore denied.

On the second issue, the Court held that the private complainant's petition, filed on July 9, 2012, was belatedly filed and therefore dismissible. She had until June 22, 2012, counted from her receipt of the order on April 23, 2012. Even if her delayed filing could be considered an exception to the rule, the Court said the petition was still not perfected.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petition was not perfected because of her failure to pay the required docket and other lawful fees. She was not exempt from payment, because she was no longer represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, which alone enjoyed the exemption. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Consistent with Section 1, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that the prescribed fees shall be paid in full upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding, the well-entrenched rule is to the effect that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees.

The Court stressed that full payment of docket fees is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and that without such payment the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Doctrine

First, the sixty-day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is non-extendible. The amendment deleted the paragraph that allowed extensions, so no court may grant one.

Second, the full payment of docket and other lawful fees is mandatory and jurisdictional. A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee, regardless of the actual date of filing in court. Without payment, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the decision or final order sought to be reviewed becomes final and executory.

Third, the exemption from docket fees belongs to the Office of the Solicitor General. A private complainant who files on her own, no longer represented by that office, must pay the fees herself.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the motion for extension and dismissed the private complainant's petition for certiorari.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the sixty-day period for certiorari is non-extendible, and docket fees are mandatory and jurisdictional. Examiners use this case to test Rule 65 deadlines and the jurisdictional effect of unpaid docket fees.