G.R. No. 163999, July 9, 2014
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Petitioner, vs. Millard R. Ocampo, Cipriano Rey R. Hipolito, Eric F. Merjilla and Jose R. Carandang, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner PLDT, through its Quality Control Investigation Division and with the assistance of the NBI, investigated alleged illegal International Simple Resale (ISR) activities by PLDT subscribers operating under the business names INFILNET and Emergency Monitoring System (EMS) in Makati City. ISR by-passes PLDT’s International Gateway Facilities, depriving it of revenues. After surveillance and verification, NBI agent Atty. Oscar Embido applied for search warrants. On September 17, 1996, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 23, issued Search Warrant No. 96-651 for INFILNET’s office and Search Warrant No. 96-652 for EMS’s office. Raids were conducted, and items were seized. An Information for simple theft was filed against respondents before the Makati RTC, Branch 60. Respondents filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, assailing the validity of the search warrants. The Makati RTC denied the motion, ruling that the issuing Manila RTC had jurisdiction to rule on the warrants’ validity. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 47265, dismissed respondents’ certiorari petition but ordered consolidation of the search warrant cases with the criminal case in Makati RTC. Subsequently, the Makati RTC, in an Order dated July 11, 2002, denied respondents’ application for a subpoena duces tecum for documents relating to PAMTEL. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated October 10, 2002, notice of which was received on October 18, 2002. On November 29, 2002, the Makati RTC heard the revived Motion to Suppress; due to respondents’ failure to appear and present evidence, the court denied the motion in open court and issued a corresponding Order. Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 74990) assailing these three Orders. The CA granted the petition, reversing the Orders and directing the grant of the subpoena and further hearing on the Motion to Suppress. PLDT filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to and granting the Petition for Certiorari despite procedural lapses, specifically: (1) the filing of the certiorari petition beyond the 60-day period for assailing the Orders dated July 11, 2002 and October 10, 2002; and (2) the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated November 29, 2002 before filing the certiorari petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted PLDT’s petition. The Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the certiorari petition due to respondents’ failure to comply with procedural rules. First, regarding the Orders dated July 11, 2002 and October 10, 2002 (denying the subpoena duces tecum and its reconsideration), the 60-day period to file a certiorari petition from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is mandatory and inextendible. Respondents received notice on October 18, 2002, making the deadline December 17, 2002. They filed their certiorari petition only on January 20, 2003, beyond the period, without showing persuasive reasons for relaxation. Second, regarding the Order dated November 29, 2002 (denying the Motion to Suppress), a motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite for certiorari. Respondents failed to file one, and none of the recognized exceptions applied. Their claim of moving for reconsideration in open court was unsupported, and the RTC’s immediate denial did not constitute a patent nullity or make a motion useless. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and strict observance of procedural rules is required. The CA should not have disturbed the RTC’s orders.