GR 143337; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143337 . April 2, 2007
URBANA T. GUY YOCHE, Petitioner, vs. NOEL GUY YOCHE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Urbana T. Guy Yoche filed a complaint for annulment of a simulated deed of sale over her property. During its pendency, respondent Noel Guy Yoche forcibly collected rentals from the tenants. Petitioner filed a petition for appointment of a receiver for the rentals, which the trial court denied in an Order dated September 10, 1999. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied in an Order dated November 5, 1999, received by her counsel on November 20, 1999.
On January 14, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the November 5, 1999 Order. The appellate court dismissed the petition, finding it failed to state the date of receipt of the September 10, 1999 Order to determine timeliness. It also ruled the petition was filed late and noted that petitioner’s prayer sought to nullify both the September 10 and November 5 Orders. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing she was challenging only the November 5 Order, but this was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on grounds of failure to state material dates and untimely filing.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is counted from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Here, petitioner received the Order denying her motion for reconsideration on November 20, 1999. Thus, the period to file expired on January 19, 2000. Her petition filed on January 14, 2000, was well within the reglementary period.
Regarding the material dates, the Court found substantial compliance. Petitioner stated in the “Antecedent Facts” of her petition the denial of her motion for appointment of a receiver on September 10, 1999, the filing of her motion for reconsideration on October 4, 1999, the denial of that motion on November 5, 1999, and her receipt of that denial on November 20, 1999. These statements sufficiently provided the necessary dates. The Supreme Court emphasized that rules of procedure should not be applied rigidly but to secure substantial justice. The dismissal on a technicality was therefore reversed, and the petition was ordered reinstated.