G.R. No. 212895, November 27, 2019
Fluor Daniel, Inc. Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

On April 26, 2000, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) issued a Notice of Award and Decision in CIAC Case No. 42-98 ordering Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) to pay Fluor Daniel, Inc. Philippines (FDIP) the amount of P13,579,599.57 plus interest. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, attaining finality on April 17, 2009. A writ of execution was issued. FEPI offered real properties as satisfaction, but FDIP, a foreign-owned corporation, refused as it cannot own real property in the Philippines. FDIP discovered FEPI owned shares in Fil-Estate Industrial Park, Inc. (FEIP), which were garnished and auctioned in December 2012, with FDIP as the highest bidder. FDIP later discovered FEIP had ceased operations, rendering the shares worthless. FDIP then refused to pay the sheriff’s commission, so no certificate of sale was executed. FDIP filed a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution with the CIAC on July 24, 2013, which the CIAC denied in an Order dated December 6, 2013. FDIP filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2013. On January 27, 2014, the CIAC issued a Declaration reiterating the denial. On February 10, 2014, FDIP filed a Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, requesting a 15-day extension until February 25, 2014. FDIP filed its petition for certiorari on February 19, 2014. The CA denied the motion for extension in a Resolution dated February 24, 2014, finding no exceptional and meritorious circumstances and noting FDIP failed to show it filed a motion for reconsideration of the CIAC Order and that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The CA denied FDIP’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 3, 2014.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying FDIP’s Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the CA Resolutions. The Supreme Court ordered the CA to reinstate and admit FDIP’s petition for certiorari and to proceed with the case. The Court ruled that while the general rule under Section 4, Rule 65 is that the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is non-extendible, it may be extended under exceptional circumstances and subject to the court’s sound discretion, as established in cases like Domdom v. Sandiganbayan, Labao v. Flores, and Mid-Islands Power Generation Corp. v. Court of Appeals. The circumstances of the case warranted the relaxation of the rule: FDIP had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy as a motion for reconsideration was prohibited under CIAC Rules; FDIP would suffer manifest injustice as it had not collected any part of the award rendered almost 20 years prior; the issues involved mixed questions of fact and law best litigated by the CA; and there was no showing FEPI would be prejudiced. Substantial justice dictated that the case be decided on its merits.