RICHARD DANTE L. CARANDANG, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISI TELETRADE, INC. AND PETER STEINBACH, RESPONDENTS.
REYES-CARPIO, A., J.:
Petitioner alleges that he is suffering from a medical ailment thus, asks for an additional fifteen (15) days to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pending resolution of the Motion for Time to File, the Petition for Review, dated May 7, 2014, was submitted to this Court and received on May 19, 2014.
The Supreme Court, in Castells vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines[3] clarified the authority of this Court to grant a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, to wit:
“It is well-settled that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time, however, the Court has recognized exceptions to the strict application of such rules, but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. These exceptions, as enumerated in the case of Labao v. Flores, are as follows:
. . . (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. . . . . 26 (Citations omitted)” (Emphasis ours).
In the instant case, this Court finds no compelling reason to grant the request for extension. Although petitioner is suffering from a medical condition, the same does not justify the failure of counsel to prepare the petition for certiorari setting forth his client’s legal arguments and in which he is presumably more well versed. Thus, his client’s ailment is not a hindrance to the preparation of the petition as counsel would have this Court believe. Resultantly, the Petition for Review shall be considered a mere scrap of paper.
In view of the foregoing, the Motion for Time to File Petition for Review is DENIED and the instant case is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Tijam, N.G., Chairman and Baltazar-Padilla, P.J., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[2] See Manifestation, Rollo, p. 3.
[3] G.R. No. 188514, August 28, 2013.