Issue
The sole issue presented before this Court is whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in
granting respondent Power One’s Motion for Extension.
Discussion
According to petitioner, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Power One’s Motion for Extension to file a petition for certiorari.
Petitioner argues that the amendment under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC had already deleted the provision that allows an extension of time to file a petition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, was previously worded thus:
SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. — 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 sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether
or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of
a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis supplied.)
In a Resolution dated 4 December 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc issued A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which amended the aforecited provision as follows:
Sec. 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’s 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.
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on
Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,19 we explained that the reason behind the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC was to prevent the
use or abuse of the remedy of petition for certiorari in order to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice. We thus deleted the clause that allowed
an extension of the period to file a Rule 65 petition for compelling reasons. Instead, we deemed the 60-day period to file as reasonable and sufficient
time for a party to mull over the case and to prepare a petition that asserts grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set
and limited in order to avoid any unreasonable delay in the dispensation of justice, a delay that could violate the constitutional right of the parties to a
speedy disposition of their case. Consequently, we pronounced that when the CA granted the motion for extension, it in effect disregarded and modified,
if not outrightly reversed, the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. We then said that in so doing, the appellate court arrogated
unto itself "a power it did not possess, a power that only this Court may exercise."20 Consequently, we ruled that petitions for certiorari must now be filed
strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.21
Nevertheless, in the more recent case of Domdom v. Sandiganbayan,22 we ruled that the deletion of the clause in Section 4, Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-
12-SC did not, ipso facto, make the filing of a motion for extension to file a Rule 65 petition absolutely prohibited. We held in Domdom that if absolute
proscription were intended, the deleted portion could have just simply been reworded to specifically prohibit an extension of time to file such petition.
Thus, because of the lack of an express prohibition, we held that motions for extension may be allowed, subject to this Court’s sound discretion, and
only under exceptional and meritorious cases.
Indeed, we have relaxed the procedural technicalities introduced under
