G.R. No. 141805. July 8, 2005
GENEVIEVE C. POBRE, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ANDREW OVALLES, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Andrew Ovalles was charged with Parricide. The Information initially recommended bail, but it was later annotated “no bail.” Upon arrest, Ovalles filed a Motion to Quash and a motion to be treated as an application for bail if the quashal was denied. At the hearing, the private prosecutor, representing the victim’s sister Genevieve Pobre (petitioner), requested a postponement as he missed his boat. The trial judge, however, proceeded, treated the motions as one to fix bail, and, with the public prosecutor’s acquiescence, submitted them for resolution. On June 29, 1998, the judge granted bail at ₱40,000. Petitioner, through counsel, later filed an Omnibus Motion contesting the bail order, seeking inhibition of the judge and prosecutor, and amendment of the Information. The judge granted the inhibition but upheld the bail order.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the bail order. The CA dismissed the petition for being filed late, counting the reglementary period from the June 29, 1998 Order. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of late filing.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court set aside the CA’s resolutions and remanded the case. The pivotal legal logic concerns the computation of the reglementary period for filing the petition. The CA counted the 60-day period from petitioner’s receipt of the June 29, 1998 Order granting bail. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the period should be counted from the denial of a motion for reconsideration of that order. Petitioner’s Omnibus Motion contesting the bail grant was, in substance, a motion for reconsideration. This motion was denied by the trial court on September 28, 1998, and petitioner received notice on October 12, 1998.
Critically, the Court applied Administrative Matter No. 00-2-03-SC, which extended the period to file petitions for certiorari from 60 to 120 days. Following established jurisprudence, this procedural rule, being curative in nature, should be applied retroactively. Counting 120 days from October 12, 1998, petitioner’s filing on December 11, 1998, was timely. Therefore, the CA’s dismissal based on prescription was a legal error. Since the CA did not resolve the substantive issues—the propriety of the bail grant, the amendment of the Information, and the alleged nullity of proceedings—the case was remanded for proper adjudication on these merits.