GR L 64023; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-64023. May 30, 1983.
PEDRO TURINGAN, petitioner, vs. JUDGE BONIFACIO CACDAC, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan, and DANIEL LUYON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro Turingan received a copy of the decision from respondent Regional Trial Court Judge Bonifacio Cacdac on April 21, 1983. This decision reversed a prior ruling from the municipal circuit court. Turingan subsequently filed a notice of appeal in the lower court on May 17, 1983.
Operating under the assumption that his deadline to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court was May 21, 1983, Turingan filed a motion with the Court on May 18, 1983. This motion sought a ten-day extension, until May 31, 1983, to formally file his petition for certiorari. The specific subject matter of the underlying case was not detailed in the resolution, but it was indicated that the Regional Trial Court’s decision was final, yet potentially reviewable by the Intermediate Appellate Court or by the Supreme Court via certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for extension, ruling it was filed out of time. The legal logic is anchored on the strict application of procedural timelines for appeals. Under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the petitioner had a period of only fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order to file the petition. Since Turingan received notice of the RTC decision on April 21, 1983, the reglementary period expired on May 6, 1983.
The Court clarified that any motion for an extension of time to file the petition must itself be filed within this same fifteen-day period. Turingan’s motion, filed on May 18, 1983, was submitted twelve days after the May 6 deadline had lapsed. His mistaken assumption about the deadline, whether based on a miscalculation or a misunderstanding of the procedural rules, did not excuse non-compliance. The Court emphasized the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of such appeal periods, which are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice and prevent undue delay. Consequently, having failed to act within the allotted time, the petitioner lost his right to seek review via certiorari, and his belated motion for extension deserved no judicial indulgence.