GR 142649; (September, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142649. September 13, 2001
ANTONIO C. SAN LUIS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NELSON BAYOT, as Presiding Judge, RTC, Pasay City, Branch 118, and T.N. LAL & CO., LTD., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent T.N. Lal & Co., Ltd. filed a petition for indirect contempt against petitioner Antonio C. San Luis, Administrator of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City (Civil Case No. 99-0480, Branch 118). The contempt action arose from petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with an order dated April 7, 1999, issued by Judge Ernesto A. Reyes of Branch 111 of the same court in a different case (Civil Case No. 97-0423), which directed the LRTA to restore private respondent’s power supply. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the contempt petition. On July 15, 1999, public respondent Judge Nelson Bayot of Branch 118 issued an order directing the transfer of the contempt case to Branch 111 for disposition, as it was the branch that issued the original order allegedly violated. Petitioner received a copy of this order on August 9, 1999. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on August 18, 1999. On October 22, 1999, Judge Bayot issued an order stating the records had already been transferred to Branch 111 and he would not act on the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner received a copy of this October 22 order on November 8, 1999. On January 7, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56549) seeking to annul Judge Bayot’s July 15 and October 22, 1999 orders. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated January 24, 2000, dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time, reckoning the 60-day filing period from petitioner’s receipt of the July 15 order on August 9, 1999, interrupted by the motion for reconsideration, and resuming from receipt of the October 22 order on November 8, 1999, making the deadline December 29, 1999. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 13, 2000.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus for being filed out of time.
2. Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus should be reinstated and decided on its merits.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner on the procedural aspect but ultimately dismissed the petition on substantive grounds.
1. On the Procedural Issue: The Supreme Court set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 24, 2000 and March 13, 2000. The Court held that the applicable rule for counting the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the amended Section 4 (by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, effective September 1, 2000), which provides that if a motion for reconsideration is filed, the period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. This procedural amendment is retroactive and applies to pending cases. Therefore, the 60-day period should be counted from petitioner’s receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration on November 8, 1999. The petition filed on January 7, 2000 was thus filed on the last day of the reglementary period and was not late. The CA erred in dismissing it.
2. On the Substantive Merit: The Supreme Court, however, proceeded to resolve the substantive issue raised in the petition to avoid further delay. It ruled that public respondent Judge Bayot did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the transfer of the indirect contempt case to Branch 111. The Court affirmed that the contempt proceeding was correctly transferred to the court whose order (the April 7, 1999 order of Branch 111) was allegedly disobeyed, as that court is in the best position to determine whether its own order was violated. The orders dated July 15, 1999 and October 22, 1999 were therefore affirmed.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were SET ASIDE. CA-G.R. SP No. 56549 was ordered DISMISSED. The orders of Judge Bayot dated July 15, 1999 and October 22, 1999 were AFFIRMED. The Presiding Judge of Branch 111, RTC Pasay City, was directed to forthwith conduct appropriate proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-0480, including the resolution of petitioner’s motion to dismiss. No costs.