GR 126405; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 126405 February 25, 1999
DRA. JOSEFA E. NEPOMUCENO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision in a criminal case on December 15, 1995. Petitioner Dra. Josefa E. Nepomuceno filed a motion for reconsideration on January 12, 1996. The appellate court, acting on the motion, required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment within ten days. The OSG filed its Comment on June 4, 1996. Petitioner subsequently filed a “Motion To Strike Off The Record the OSG’s Comment,” contending it was filed beyond the period fixed by the court in a May 17, 1996 resolution.
On September 20, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied both the motion to strike and the motion for reconsideration. It ruled that the OSG’s Comment was timely, as the court had issued a subsequent resolution on June 10, 1996, granting a final extension until June 8, 1996. It also found the motion for reconsideration bereft of merit. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion To Strike Off the Record the OSG’s Comment and in denying her motion for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the OSG’s Comment filed on June 4, 1996, was seasonable. A review of the records revealed the Court of Appeals had granted the OSG several successive extensions: 30 days until March 10, another 30 days until April 9, another 30 days until May 9, 15 days until May 24, and a final 15-day extension until June 8, 1996, via its June 10 resolution. The filing on June 4 fell within this last granted period.
The Court reiterated that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. No such abuse was present. The appellate court’s actions were in line with a liberal application of procedural rules to serve substantial justice. Allowing the Solicitor General adequate time to comment on the motion for reconsideration was in the interest of justice. Technicalities should not bar a full hearing on the merits. The denial of the motion for reconsideration was also proper, as the grounds raised had already been considered and passed upon in the original decision, with no new compelling reason presented for reversal.