Republic Vs ST Vincent de Paul Digest

REPUBLIC VS. ST.
VINCENT DE PAUL
August 22, 2012
(GR 192908)
FACTS:
Two cases filed by the Republic seeking expropriation of certain

properties in the name of St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. (St.
Vincent): (1) to expropriate 1,992 square meters out of a total area
of 6,068 square meters of land for the construction of the Manila-
Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP). (2) to expropriate 2,450
square meters out of a total area of 9,039 square meters, also
belonging to St. Vincent.
Subsequently, the Republic filed in both cases an amended

complaint alleging that the subject land originated from a free
patent title and should be adjudicated to it without payment of just
compensation pursuant to Section 112 of Commonwealth Act No.
141. In 2005, the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of an
order of expropriation and was granted in both two cases.
The trial court denied St. Vincent’s motion for reconsideration

granting expropriation. The lower court, however, modified its Order
and required the Republic to immediately pay St. Vincent in an
amount equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the value of
the property sought to be expropriated. The Republic moved for
reconsideration but it was denied.
Seeking to avail the extra ordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court, the Republic filed with the CA a motion for
additional time of fifteen (15) days within which to file its petition.
The CA granted the motion and the Republic was given a non-
extensible period of fifteen (15) days within which to file its petition
for certiorari. The Republic filed its petition for certiorari for having
been issued an order with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or in excess of jurisdiction. The CA, motu proprio, issued a
Resolution ordering the Republic to show cause why its petition for
certiorari should not be dismissed for being filed out of time,
pursuant to A.M. No. 07-7-12- SC. The Republic filed its
Compliance with Explanation pleading for the relaxation of the
rules by reason of the transcendental importance of the issues
involved in the case and in consideration of substantial justice. The
CA rendered the assailed resolution dismissing the Republic’s
petition for certiorari on the ground that the petition was filed out of
time. The CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence,this petition.
ISSUE: WON, the CA erred in denying the petition of certiorari for

being filed out of time?
RULING:
YES, The Petition should be granted. The CA relied on the ruling

in Laguna Metts Corporation vs. CA that the sixty (60)-day period
within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are now
disallowed by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC amending Sec.4, Rule 65. The
petitioner, however, insists that Domdom vs. Sandiganbayan allows
extensions of time to file a petition.
A reading of the foregoing rulings leads to the simple conclusion

that Laguna Metts Corporation involves a strict application of the
general rule that petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly
within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the
order denying a motion for reconsideration. Domdom, on the
other hand, relaxed the rule and allowed an extension of the
sixty (60)-day period subject to the Court’s sound discretion.
Labao vs. Flores subsequently laid down some of the exceptions
to the strict application of the rule: such as: (1) most persuasive
and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the
existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of
the case; (6) 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
appellant’s 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 Republic’s 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.

Republic Vs ST Vincent de Paul Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic Vs ST Vincent de Paul Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC VS. ST.

Two cases filed by the Republic seeking expropriation of certain

Subsequently, the Republic filed in both cases an amended

The trial court denied St. Vincent’s motion for reconsideration

Seeking to avail the extra ordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule

ISSUE: WON, the CA erred in denying the petition of certiorari for

YES, The Petition should be granted. The CA relied on the ruling

A reading of the foregoing rulings leads to the simple conclusion

To reiterate, under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as

You might also like