Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic Vs ST Vincent de Paul, Digest
Republic Vs ST Vincent de Paul, Digest
a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the
rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party
will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without
appellants fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name
of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound
discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.
To reiterate, under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation,
the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. Under exceptional circumstances, however, and
subject to the sound discretion of the Court, said period may be extended pursuant to Domdom, Labao
and Mid-Islands Power cases. Accordingly, the CA should have admitted the Republics petition: first, due
to its own lapse when it granted the extension sought by the Republic per Resolution dated April 30,
2009; second, because of the public interest involved, i.e., expropriation of private property for public use
(MCTEP); and finally, no undue prejudice or delay will be caused to either party in admitting the petition.
DECISION: Petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated October 30, 2009 and July 15, 2010 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108499 are NULLIFIED. The Court of Appeals is hereby ORDERED
to REINSTATE and ADMIT the petition for certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines.