G.R. No. 169942 ; January 24, 2011
BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS thru BARANGAY CAPTAIN MA. ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL, DR. AMADO J. PIAMONTE, REGINA PIAMONTE TAMBUNTING, CELINE CONCEPCION LEBRON and CECILE CUNA COLINA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Barangay Dasmariñas, through Barangay Captain Ma. Encarnacion R. Legaspi, filed a criminal complaint for Falsification and Use of Falsified Documents against respondents before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office. The complaint alleged that respondents falsified and used a Barangay Clearance and Official Receipt purportedly issued by the Barangay Captain’s office. The Assistant City Prosecutor recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause, citing the absence of laboratory findings confirming falsification and linking respondents to it. The City Prosecutor approved the dismissal. Petitioner elevated the case to the Department of Justice (DOJ) via a Petition for Review, which the DOJ dismissed, finding no error in the prosecutor’s resolution and noting the petition was filed late. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioner then sought to file a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (CA). It filed a First Motion for Extension of 15 days, which the CA granted, extending the filing deadline to May 28, 2005. Instead of filing on that date, petitioner filed a Second Motion for Extension, requesting an additional 5 days until June 2, 2005, citing the same reason of counsel’s heavy workload. Petitioner ultimately filed the petition by mail on June 7, 2005. The CA denied the Second Motion for Extension and dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the allowed period. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, explaining it had also filed a “Final Motion for Additional Time” requesting an extension until June 7, 2005, due to a sudden death in the family of the handling lawyer. The CA denied the motion, holding that a second extension is allowed only for the most compelling reason, which counsel’s workload is not, and that a third extension is not authorized by the rules.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying petitioner’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review and consequently dismissing the petition for being filed out of time.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that procedural rules are not to be disregarded. Under Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, only one 15-day extension may be granted for filing a petition for review; a second extension may be granted only for the most compelling reason. The reason proffered by petitioner’s counsel—”pressures of other equally important pleadings” or heavy workload—is not considered a compelling reason under prevailing jurisprudence. The Court emphasized that the original 15-day period plus a 15-day extension constitute a reasonable total of 30 days to prepare the petition.
Regarding the “Final Motion for Additional Time” citing a death in the family, the Court noted that no details were provided about the deceased’s relationship to counsel to assess the claim’s compelling nature. Furthermore, a third extension is not permitted by the rules. The Court also found that the petition was filed on June 7, 2005, which was five days late even from the second extension sought (until June 2, 2005). The Court reiterated that liberal application of procedural rules is not a license to disregard them, especially when the party has not shown a compelling reason for non-compliance. Thus, the CA correctly denied the motions and dismissed the petition for being filed out of time.