ROSARIO LACSAMANA, FLORENCIO BAUTISTA, QUIRICO PACLIBAR, EDUARDO OCAMPO, JULIO BARIZO, PEDRO PANGILINAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE SECOND SPECIAL CASES DIVISION OF …

Lacsamana versus Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Rosario Lacsamana and several other litigants against the Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now the Court of Appeals. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the appellate court's decision and resolution refusing to grant them an extension of time to file a petition for review, and treating their case as terminated. The case matters because it fixes, for the guidance of Bench and Bar, the rules on the modes and periods of appeal, and settles the precise question the appellate court got wrong: whether a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review may be filed with and granted by the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

The case began in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, which rendered a decision against the petitioners. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Makati affirmed. Counsel for the petitioners received a copy of that decision on the thirtieth of September, 1985. On the eleventh of October, 1985, counsel filed with the Intermediate Appellate Court a motion for a fifteen-day extension, up to the thirtieth of October, 1985, to file a petition for review, paying the necessary docket fees. On the sixteenth of October, 1985, the Second Special Cases Division of the appellate court denied the motion, relying on the Habaluyas versus Japzon ruling, and declared the case terminated. The petitioners moved for reconsideration and attached the petition for review for admission. On the fourth of December, 1985, a division of five members denied the motion, with one justice dissenting and another concurring but opining that such motions lie in the sound discretion of the court. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

The petitioners lost before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, and again before the Regional Trial Court of Makati on appeal. They had fifteen days from notice of the Regional Trial Court decision to bring the matter to the Intermediate Appellate Court by petition for review. Counsel received the decision on the thirtieth of September, 1985.

Rather than file the petition at once, counsel asked the appellate court for fifteen more days, up to the thirtieth of October, 1985, explaining that he needed time to finalize the pleading given his other written pleadings and trial commitments. He paid the docket fees with the motion.

The appellate court denied the motion outright, invoking Habaluyas versus Japzon for the proposition that the period for appealing cannot be extended, and declared the case terminated. The petitioners sought reconsideration and attached the petition for review, but the motion was denied by a divided court. Hence the petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules may properly be filed with and granted by the Intermediate Appellate Court, now the Court of Appeals.
• Whether or not the appellate court erred in applying the Habaluyas versus Japzon ruling, which concerned the period for filing a motion for reconsideration, to a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review.

Applicable Provisions

Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules govern appeals by petition for review to the Court of Appeals. The Court cites them as the source of the remedy invoked by the petitioners, and holds that a motion for extension of time to file such a petition may be filed with and granted by the appellate court.

The Court restates the rule on extensions in this wise:

Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Decision, an extension of only fifteen days for filing a petition for review may be granted by the Court of Appeals, save in exceptionally meritorious cases.

This fixes both the court that may grant the extension and its ordinary length, and it is the rule the appellate court refused to apply.

The Court also restates the requirement for the motion itself:

The motion for extension of time must be filed and the corresponding docket fee paid within the reglementary period of appeal.

This explains why the petitioners' motion, filed on the eleventh of October, 1985, within the fifteen-day period counted from the thirtieth of September, 1985, was timely and accompanied by the proper fees.

On the modes of appeal by petition for review, the Court states:

The final judgment or order of a regional trial court in an appeal from the final judgment or order of a metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review in accordance with Section 22 of BP No. 129 and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules, or to this Court through a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Section 25 of the Interim Rules.

This identifies the remedy the petitioners were pursuing and the provision under which the extension was sought.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. A motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act and Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules may properly be filed with and granted by the Intermediate Appellate Court, now the Court of Appeals. The reason is practical: the period for filing a petition for review is only fifteen days, and if a motion for reconsideration is filed with and denied by the Regional Trial Court, the movant has only the remaining period within which to file the petition. Hence it may be necessary to seek an extension from the appellate court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellate court misread Habaluyas versus Japzon. That case involved the period for filing a motion for reconsideration, not the period for filing a petition for review, and the original decision therein had in fact been reversed by the Court en banc on the thirtieth of May, 1986. The Court en banc had there restated the rules, strictly barring extensions for motions for new trial or reconsideration in the lower courts, while allowing extensions in the situations it enumerated, including appeals by petition for review to the Court of Appeals.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review may be filed with and granted by the Court of Appeals, and the extension ordinarily granted is fifteen days, save in exceptionally meritorious cases. Second, the motion must be filed and the corresponding docket fee paid within the reglementary period of appeal, and copies of the motion and of the subsequent petition must be served on the Regional Trial Court and on the adverse party. Third, the strict prohibition on extensions applies to motions for new trial or reconsideration in the lower courts, not to petitions for review; the two must not be confused. Fourth, the modes and periods of appeal are fixed by the Court's restated rules, and litigants must match the correct mode to the correct period.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, set aside the appellate court's decision of the sixteenth of October, 1985 and its resolution of the fourth of December, 1985, and directed that court to admit the petitioners' petition for review for proper determination, the decision being immediately executory.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review may be filed with and granted by the Court of Appeals, for fifteen days save in exceptionally meritorious cases, provided it is filed and the docket fee paid within the reglementary period. Examiners use this case to test whether you can distinguish the period for appealing from the period for filing a motion for reconsideration, and to test the restated modes and periods of appeal.