G.R. No. 173375. September 25, 2008.
LEONCIO D. MANGAHAS, ZALDY G. MATIAS, ORLANDO O. OANES, DANTE Y. ARCILLA AND JOCELYN R. DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, versus THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GAPAN CITY, BRANCH 35, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DR. CELIA MORALES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, municipal councilors of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, were charged with violation of Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Office of the Ombudsman by private respondent Dr. Celia Morales. The complaint alleged that petitioners, in their official capacity, passed a resolution converting an agricultural lot into a memorial garden despite insufficient legal requirements. It was further alleged that they subsequently neglected to act on Morales’s repeated requests for a hearing and deliberately refused to attend a scheduled public hearing on the matter, thereby causing undue injury and giving unwarranted advantage to the landowners.
The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the corresponding Information with the Sandiganbayan. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, which was denied. They then filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City. The RTC denied this motion and later denied their Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated 29 September 2005. Petitioners received a copy of this denial on 17 October 2005. On 15 November 2005, they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for having been filed out of time.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling, emphasizing the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the reglementary period for filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The period is 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The reckoning date was 17 October 2005, when petitioners received the RTC Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration. They thus had until 16 December 2005 to file their petition. Their filing on 15 November 2005 was clearly within the period.
However, the CA found the petition filed on 22 November 2005, as the earlier filing lacked the required certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the submission of certified true copies is an indispensable requirement for the petition’s sufficiency. Failure to comply renders the petition defective and does not toll the running of the period. The Court rejected petitioners’ claim of a “fresh period” from the denial of their motion for reconsideration, clarifying that the “fresh period” rule established in Neypes v. Court of Appeals applies only to appeals under Rule 41, not to original petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, the CA committed no error in dismissing the petition for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period.