G.R. No. 114920 . August 23, 1995.
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDUARDO V. MATURAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) dismissed private respondent Eduardo Maturan, a bank teller, on July 18, 1991, for alleged cash shortage, failure to return a client’s cash withdrawal, and extending unauthorized accommodations. Maturan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full back wages and damages. The NLRC initially reversed this, validating the dismissal, but upon Maturan’s motion for reconsideration, modified its resolution. The modified NLRC resolution, dated December 15, 1993 and received by PCIB on February 22, 1994, ordered Maturan’s reinstatement to a comparable position but without back wages from his termination until the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
PCIB sought to challenge this modificatory resolution. It filed two motions for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied for procedural lapses. Nevertheless, PCIB filed the present Rule 65 petition on April 26, 1994. Maturan moved to deny its admission, arguing that the denial of the extension motions left the petition without basis. The Court required comments. The NLRC filed its comment, but Maturan, persisting in his motion, did not.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was validly filed and admissible despite the denial of the petitioner’s motions for extension of time to file it.

RULING

Yes, the petition was validly filed and admissible. The Court clarified the distinction between petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 and petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action, not an appeal. It is not governed by a fixed reglementary period but must merely be filed within a “reasonable time” from notice of the assailed judgment or resolution. In contrast, an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 45 has a strict, non-extendible period.
Here, PCIB received the challenged NLRC resolution on February 22, 1994, and filed its Rule 65 petition on April 26, 1994—a span of two months, which the Court deemed a reasonable period. Consequently, the earlier denial of PCIB’s motions for extension was irrelevant to the validity of the petition itself. The motions were unnecessary because the reasonable time requirement for Rule 65 had not lapsed. The filing of such motions, and their denial, did not invalidate a petition that was itself timely filed. Therefore, Maturan’s motion to deny admission was denied, and the Court proceeded to resolve the substantive merits of the case.