Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heirs of Zaulda vs. Zaulda
Heirs of Zaulda vs. Zaulda
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition
45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the February 11, for being filed out of time despite the motion for extension of
2011 Resolutio of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. SP time having been timely filed
No. 05379, dismissing the petition for review of the petitioners,
and its March 6, 2012 Resolution, denying the petitioners' RULING:Records show that on March 10, 2010, petitioners
motion for reconsideration. timely filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial of the
RTC decision (dated January 20, 2010, received by petitioners
A perusal of the Petition revealed there were impediments to on February 25, 2010), but the same was denied in the RTC
the Court's subsequent action thereon: Order, dated August 4, 2010, copy of which was received by
petitioners on August 10, 2010. Thus, they had until August
1. the Petition was not filed in the nick of time 25, 2010 within which to file a petition for review pursuant to
inasmuch as the Court could not have pursued action said Section 1, Rule 42.
on or before September 9, 2010 which was supposedly
the last day specified on the Motion for Extension of On August 24, 2010, petitioners filed their Motion for Extension
Time to File Petition for Review dated August 23, 2010, of Time to File Petition for Review before the CA, paying the
postmarked August 24, 2010, and received by this docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs and prayed
Court on September 13, 2010 for the simple reason for an additional period of fifteen (15) days from August 25,
that this Division apparently received a copy of the 2010 or until September 9, 2010, within which to file the said
Motion only on September 14, 2010, and the Rollo was petition.
forwarded to the Office of the ponente only on January
5, 2011. Certainly, parties and counsel should not On September 9, 2010, they filed the Petition for Review.
assume that Courts are bound to grant the time they
pray for. By parity of reasoning, a motion that is not The Court notes that the petition for review before the CA was
acted upon in due time is deemed denied. filed within the additional fifteen (15) day period prayed for in
their motion for extension of time to file it, which was filed on
time by registered mail. To repeat, the petition was filed on
September 9, 2010, within the fifteen (15) day period extension would be granted, any denial thereof should be
requested in their motion for extension of time to file the reasonable.
petition.
The petitioners could not also be faulted that the motion for
extension of time was received by the CA on September 13,
2010. The rules allow parties to file a pleading by registered
mail. They are not required to ensure that it would be received
by the court on or before the last day of the extended period
prayed for. Though no party can assume that its motion for