CPM GROUP OF COMPANIES AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY CONSOLACION P. MARCOS, PETITIONER, V. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ANA MARIE JOSON-VITERBO (RTC BR. 24, CABANATUAN CITY) P…
CORALES, J.:
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with application for issuance of
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction seeking
to annul the February 17, 2014 Decision[2] and March 7, 2014 Writ of Possession[3]
issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Cabanatuan City in
Cad. Case No. 3342-AF. The assailed Decision granted the Petition for
Issuance of a Writ of Possession filed by private respondent Producers
Savings Bank Corporation (PSBC), while the questioned Writ of Possession
commanded the Sheriff to place PSBC in possession of the property
subject of the petition and to eject herein petitioner from the said
property.
On April 28, 2014, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari[4]
praying for a 15-day additional period or from April 27, 2014 until May
12, 2014 within which to file the petition. Subsequently, petitioner
filed a Manifestation[5]
informing this Court that the last day for filing the petition was on
April 28, 2014 and not April 27, 2014. Thus, it prayed that its motion
for extension of time be reckoned from April 28, 2014 until May 13,
2014. Eventually, on May 13, 2014, petitioner filed the present petition
for certiorari.
The petition for certiorari is procedurally infirmed
because the complete and current addresses of petitioner and private
respondent are not indicated in the petition, in violation of Section 3,
paragraph 1,[6] Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
According to the Supreme Court in Cedaña v. Avila,[7] the requirement that a petition for certiorari
must contain the actual addresses of all the petitioners and the
respondents is mandatory. Thus, petitioner’s failure to comply with the
said requirement is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the present
petition.
More importantly, it bears stressing 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,[8] 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.
Considering that a motion for extension of time is not allowed
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the 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.
We remind petitioner that rules prescribing the time for doing
specific acts or for taking certain proceedings are considered
absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and
promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules
are regarded as mandatory.[9] It must be borne in mind that a petition for certiorari
is an extraordinary remedy. As such, the party who seeks to avail of
the same must strictly observe the procedural rules laid down by law,
and non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere
technicality.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari is DENIED. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Villon (Chairperson) and Macalino, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pages 11-21.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Ana Marie C. Joson-Viterbo, ibid., pages 22-28.
[3] Ibid., page 29-30.
[4] Ibid., pages 4-6.
[5] Ibid., pages 9-10.
[6] The petition shall
contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual
background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief
prayed for. x x x
[7] G.R. No. 168350. January 31, 2008.
[8] G.R. No. 185220. July 27, 2009. Emphasis appear in the original text.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Congressman Chong v. Hon. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 184948. July 21, 2009.