GR L 73146; (August, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-73146-53 August 26, 1986
ROSARIO LACSAMANA, FLORENCIO BAUTISTA, QUIRICO PACLIBAR, EDUARDO OCAMPO, JULIO BARIZO, PEDRO PANGILINAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SECOND SPECIAL CASES DIVISION OF THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ANIGIA I. CRUZ, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners received an adverse decision from the Regional Trial Court of Makati on September 30, 1985. On October 11, 1985, within the 15-day reglementary period to appeal, their counsel filed a motion with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) for a 15-day extension to file a petition for review, citing workload and trial commitments, and paid the corresponding docket fees. However, on October 16, 1985, the IAC’s Second Special Cases Division denied the motion and declared the case terminated. It relied on the Supreme Court’s Second Division ruling in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Japzon, which stated that the period for appealing could not be extended.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on October 30, 1985, attaching their petition for review. On December 4, 1985, a five-member division of the IAC denied the motion, though one justice dissented and another concurred but expressed that the Habaluyas doctrine was not an absolute rule. Petitioners subsequently elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) may grant a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and the Interim Rules.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the IAC’s decision and resolution. The Court clarified that the original Habaluyas ruling, which was subsequently reversed en banc on May 30, 1986, pertained specifically to motions for extension to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration in lower courts, not to motions for extension to file a petition for review in the IAC. For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court held that a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review may properly be filed with and granted by the IAC.
The Court systematically restated the rules on appeals and extensions. It distinguished between ordinary appeals by notice of appeal (where no extension is needed or allowed) and appeals via a petition for review to the IAC from RTC decisions in cases originally filed in the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts. For the latter, governed by Section 22 of B.P. 129, the filing of a petition for review is required. The Court explicitly recognized that, in such instances, it may be necessary to file a motion with the IAC for an extension of time to file the petition. The motion and docket fee must be filed within the reglementary period. Beginning one month after this decision’s promulgation, only one 15-day extension could be granted, save in exceptionally meritorious cases. Consequently, the IAC was directed to admit the petitioners’ petition for review for proper determination.