GR 139120; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139120 July 31, 2003
SPS. FREDDIE & ELIZABETH WEBB, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Webb family, filed a libel complaint with the Makati City Prosecutor against the Board of Directors, publisher, editors, and reporters of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) for publishing articles implicating them in the Vizconde murder case. The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against the corporate Board members, citing Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which specifies liability only for authors, editors, or business managers. However, he found probable cause for libel against the publisher, editors, and reporters, leading to the filing of Informations in court.
Upon review, the Secretary of Justice reversed the finding of probable cause against all respondents and ordered the withdrawal of the Informations. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to challenge the Secretary’s resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the reglementary period for filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioners received the denial of their motion for reconsideration from the Secretary of Justice on September 4, 1998. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, they had only the remaining period, but not less than five days, from notice to file their petition. They filed it on November 6, 1998, which was 63 days later, clearly beyond the 60-day maximum period prescribed by law.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ plea for liberality, stating that procedural rules are not to be disregarded lightly. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. While there are exceptions, such as when a rigid application would result in a manifest failure of justice, no such compelling circumstances were present here. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Secretary of Justice’s resolution, as his power to review and reverse the prosecutor’s findings is well-established, and his determination of probable cause is generally respected. The petition was denied for being procedurally infirm and lacking in merit.