G.R. No. 208181 , August 31, 2016
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner vs. N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Manila Electric Company (Meralco) entered into a Service Contract to supply electricity to respondent N.E. Magno Construction, Inc.’s ice plant. In October 2002, Meralco inspected the site and found tampered electric meters, indicating theft of electricity. Meralco temporarily severed the electric supply and later sent a differential billing. Due to non-payment, services were permanently disconnected. Respondent filed an action for Mandatory Injunction with Damages before the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite, alleging disconnection without prior notice and absence of its representatives, and denying any meter manipulation. Meralco contended it had a contractual right to discontinue service due to tampering and that disconnection was with notice and presence of respondent’s representatives after failure to settle the differential billing. The RTC granted respondent’s application for preliminary injunction on February 1, 2005. During the pre-trial on April 8, 2005, Meralco and its counsel failed to appear, prompting the RTC to allow respondent to present evidence ex-parte. Meralco received the April 8, 2005 Order on April 19, 2005, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration (First Motion) on May 5, 2005. Respondent opposed this for non-compliance with the three-day notice rule. The RTC, in an Order dated July 28, 2008, denied and expunged the First Motion for lack of merit due to failure to attach proof of service and violation of the three-day rule. Meralco received this Order on August 5, 2008. Instead of filing a petition for certiorari, Meralco filed a “Very Respectful Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration” on August 20, 2008, which the RTC denied in an Order dated February 23, 2010, received by Meralco on March 8, 2010. Meralco then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals on May 6, 2010, assailing the RTC Orders dated April 8, 2005, July 28, 2008, and February 23, 2010. The CA dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period, counting from the receipt of the July 28, 2008 Order denying the First Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition for having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved party has sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution to file a petition for certiorari. If a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the 60-day period is counted from the notice of the denial of that motion. Meralco received the RTC Order denying its First Motion for Reconsideration on August 5, 2008. Thus, it had until October 4, 2008, to file a certiorari petition. However, Meralco filed its petition only on May 6, 2010, which was clearly beyond the reglementary period. The filing of a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the period, as such motions are generally prohibited and considered mere scraps of paper. Meralco offered no compelling reason to relax the rules, and its insistence on reckoning the period from the denial of the second motion found no basis in law or jurisprudence. Consequently, the RTC Orders dated April 8, 2005, and July 28, 2008, had attained finality.