G.R. No. 192908. August 22, 2012.

*
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), petitioner, vs. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES, INC.,
respondent.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; 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.―Under Section
4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation, 594 SCRA 139 (2009), 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the decision of the Court.
  Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
  Triste, Nalda & Associates for respondent.
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
where petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), represented by the Department of Public
Works and Highways through the Office of the Solicitor General, questions the resolutions of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108499, to wit:
1. Resolution dated October 30, 20092 dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 for being filed out of time; and
2. Resolution dated July 15, 20103 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Antecedent Facts

The instant case arose from two cases filed by the Republic seeking expropriation of certain
properties in the name of St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. (St. Vincent). In Civil Case No.
0062-04, the Republic sought 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). Said property belongs to St. Vincent covered by TCT No. T-821169 and located in
Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite. In Civil Case No. 0100-04, on the other hand, the Republic sought to
expropriate 2,450 square meters out of a total area of 9,039 square meters, also belonging to St.
Vincent and covered by TCT No. T-821170. Said property adjoins the property subject of Civil
Case No. 0062-04.
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.
On August 9, 2005, the Republic filed in Civil Case No. 0062-04 a motion for the issuance of
an order of expropriation.4 It was granted by the trial court per Order5 dated August 16, 2005,
ruling that the Republic has a lawful right to take the 1,992 square meters portion of the subject
property, with “no pronouncement as to just compensation” since the subject property originated
from a free patent.6 A motion for the issuance of an order of expropriation was likewise filed by
the Republic in Civil Case No. 0100-04 but before this could be resolved, the Republic moved to
consolidate the two cases, which was granted by the trial court.7
On November 16, 2006, the trial court denied St. Vincent’s motion for reconsideration of its
Order dated August 16, 2005 granting expropriation.8 As alleged in the petition, no appeal was
taken by St. Vincent from said orders.9
After almost 2 years, or on July 28, 2008, St. Vincent filed a Manifestation with Motion for
Clarification of the Order dated August 16, 2005,10 contending that although it does not oppose
the ruling regarding the determination of public purpose and the Republic’s right to expropriate
the subject land, it, however, claims that it is entitled to just compensation.
Meanwhile, the Republic attempted to implement the Order dated August 16, 2005 by
entering the subject portion of St. Vincent’s property. Aggrieved, the latter demanded upon the
Republic and its agents to immediately vacate, and remove any and all equipment or structures
they introduced on its property in a demand-letter11 dated October 3, 2008.
Due to St. Vincent’s refusal to honor the order of expropriation, the Republic filed an urgent
motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, which was denied by the lower court in its
Order12 dated November 25, 2006 [2008]. The lower court, however, modified its Order dated
August 16, 2005 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 by the lower court per Order13 dated
January 29, 2009 for lack of factual and legal basis.
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 in its Resolution14 dated April 30, 2009 and the
Republic was given a non-extensible period of fifteen (15) days or until May 4, 2009 within
which to file its petition for certiorari.
On April 30, 2009, the Republic filed its petition for certiorari assailing the lower court’s
orders dated November 25, 2008 and January 29, 2009 for having been issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
On June 19, 2009, the CA, motu proprio, issued a Resolution15 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 16 dated July 1, 2009 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. St. Vincent filed its Comment/Opposition 17 dated
July 15, 2009 alleging among others that the said explanation is merely pro forma due to the
Republic’s failure to justify its explanation.
On October 30, 2009, the CA rendered the assailed resolution dismissing the Republic’s
petition for certiorari on the ground that the petition was filed out of time inasmuch as
extensions of time are now disallowed by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC18 and as applied in Laguna Metts
Corporation v. Court of Appeals.19
On November 26, 2009, the Republic filed its motion for reconsideration alleging that it
merely relied in good faith on the appellate court’s resolution granting the former an additional
period of fifteen (15) days within which to file the subject petition.
 On July 15, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed resolution denying the Republic’s motion for
reconsideration, stating that it cannot disobey the ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation.20
Hence, this petition.
The Republic relies on the CA resolution granting its motion for extension of time and upon
the strength of the substantial merits of its petition. The Republic also invokes Domdom v. Third
and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan,21 where the Court ruled that absent a prohibition,
motions for extensions are allowed, subject to the Court’s sound discretion.
St. Vincent, however, contends that the present petition fails to neither allege any
circumstance nor state any justification for the deliberate disregard of a very elementary rule of
procedure like Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. And in the absence of any such
circumstance or justification, the general rule on pro forma motions/pleadings must apply.

The Issue

The Republic discussed the substantial merits of its case; however, the CA did no more than
include such matters in its narration of facts, and neither did St. Vincent dwell on said issues.
Hence, the only issue to be resolved in this petition is whether the CA committed a reversible
error when it dismissed the Republic’s petition for certiorari for being filed out of time, pursuant
to A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC.

The Court’s Ruling

We GRANT the petition.

The Court notes that the CA Resolution dated April 30, 2009, which initially granted the
Republic’s motion for extension, was premised on the mistaken notion that the petition filed by
the latter was one for petition for review as a mode of appeal. The CA resolution stated, among
others: “[P]rovided that this Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review is
seasonably filed, as prayed for, x x x.”22 Thus, the CA granted extension inasmuch as motions for
this purpose are allowed by the rules. 23 On this score alone, the CA should have admitted the
petition filed by the Republic since the latter merely relied on its Resolution dated April 30, 2009
granting the extension prayed for.
Nevertheless, the CA subsequently dismissed the petition filed by the Republic on the ground
that the same was filed out of time, following A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. In its Resolution dated July
15, 2010, which dismissed the Republic’s motion for reconsideration, the CA also relied on the
ruling in Laguna Metts Corporation that the sixty (60)-day period within which to file a petition
for certiorari is non-extendible. The petitioner, however, insists that Domdom allows extensions
of time to file a petition.
In order to resolve the instant controversy, the Court deems it necessary to discuss the
relationship between its respective rulings in Laguna Metts Corporation and Domdom with
respect to the application of the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC to Section 4,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Before said amendment, Section 4 of Rule 65 originally provides:
Sec. 4. When and where petition filed.―The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion.
 The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower
court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over
the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether
or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by
law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case
exceeding fifteen (15) days.
As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, Section 4 of Rule 65 now reads:
Sec. 4. When and where petition filed.―The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the
denial of said motion.
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an
officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the
Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition
involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules,
the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition
shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
In interpreting said amendment, the Court, in Laguna Metts Corporation, held that:
As a rule, an amendment by the deletion of certain words or phrases indicates an intention to change
its meaning. It is presumed that the deletion would not have been made if there had been no intention to
effect a change in the meaning of the law or rule. The amended law or rule should accordingly be given a
construction different from that previous to its amendment. If the Court intended to retain the authority of
the proper courts to grant extensions under Section 4 of Rule 65, the paragraph providing for such
authority would have been preserved. The removal of the said paragraph under the amendment by A.M.
No. 07-7-12-SC of Section 4, Rule 65 simply meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-
day period within which to file a petition for certiorari.
The rationale for the amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC is essentially to prevent the use (or
abuse) of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice.
Deleting the paragraph allowing extensions to file petition on compelling grounds did away with the
filing of such motions. As the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60
days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration.  (Citation 24

omitted and emphasis ours)

Nevertheless, Domdom later stated:
On the People’s argument that a motion for extension of time to file a petition for  certiorari is no
longer allowed, the same rests on shaky grounds. Supposedly, the deletion of the following provision in
Section 4 of Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC evinces an intention to absolutely prohibit motions for
extension:
“No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason
and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.”
The full text of Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, reads:
x x x x
That no mention is made in the above-quoted amended Section 4 of Rule 65 of a motion for
extension, unlike in the previous for formulation, does not make the filing of such pleading
absolutely prohibited. If such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been
reworded to state that “no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted.” Absent such
prohibition, motions for extensions are allowed, subject to the Court’s sound discretion. The
present petition may thus be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought and, at all
events, given its merits.  (Citation omitted and emphasis and underscoring ours)
25

What seems to be a “conflict” is actually more apparent than real. 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.26
Labao v. Flores27 subsequently laid down some of the exceptions to the strict application of
the rule, viz.:
Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should be instituted
within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-
day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional
rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.
xxxx
However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, 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. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.  (Citations omitted and
28

emphasis ours)
Note that Labao explicitly recognized the general rule that the sixty (60)-day period within
which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is non-extendible, only that there are certain
exceptional circumstances, which may call for its non-observance. Even more recently, in Mid-
Islands Power Generation Corporation v. Court of Appeals,29 the Court, taking into
consideration Laguna Metts Corporation and Domdom, “relaxed the procedural technicalities
introduced under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC in order to serve substantial justice and safeguard strong
public interest” and affirmed the extension granted by the CA to the respondent Power One
Corporation due to the exceptional nature of the case and the strong public interest involved.
In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we explained that the reason behind the
amendments under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC was to prevent the use or abuse of the remedy of petition
for certiorari in order to delay a case or even defeat the ends of justice. We thus deleted the clause that
allowed an extension of the period to file a Rule 65 petition for compelling reasons. Instead, we deemed
the 60-day period to file as reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over the case and to
prepare a petition that asserts grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically
set and limited in order to avoid any unreasonable delay in the dispensation of justice, a delay that could
violate the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. x x x.
Nevertheless, in the more recent case of Domdom v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled that the deletion of
the clause in Section 4, Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC did not, ipso facto, make the filing of a
motion for extension to file a Rule 65 petition absolutely prohibited. We held in Domdom that if
absolute proscription were intended, the deleted portion could have just simply been reworded to
specifically prohibit an extension of time to file such petition. Thus, because of the lack of an express
prohibition, we held that motions for extension may be allowed, subject to this Court’s sound
discretion, and only under exceptional and meritorious cases.
Indeed, we have relaxed the procedural technicalities introduced under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC in order
to serve substantial justice and safeguard strong public interest. x x x:
x x x x
The present Petition involves one of those exceptional cases in which relaxing the procedural
rules would serve substantial justice and safeguard strong public interest. x x x Consequently, in order to
protect strong public interest, this Court deems it appropriate and justifiable to relax the amendment of
Section 4, Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, concerning the reglementary period for the filing of a
Rule 65 petition. Considering that the imminent power crisis is an exceptional and meritorious
circumstance, the parties herein should be allowed to litigate the issues on the merits.  Furthermore, we
find no significant prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants as respondent was able to file
the Petition before the CA within the 15-day extension it asked for. We therefore find no grave abuse
of discretion attributable to the CA when it granted respondent Power One’s Motion for Extension to file
its Petition for Certiorari.  (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
30

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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 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 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108499 and to
proceed with the case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,** Perez and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, resolutions nullified.
Notes.―While the proper courts previously had discretion to extend the period for filing a
petition for certiorari beyond the 60-day period, the amendments to Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-
7-12-SC disallowed extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari with the deletion of the
paragraph that previously permitted such extensions. (Laguna Metts Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 594 SCRA 139 [2009])
_______________
**  Additional member per Special Order No. 1286 dated August 22, 2012 vice Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion.
Under Supreme Court Circular No. 56-2000, in case a motion for reconsideration of the
judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed has been filed, the 60-day period to file a
petition for certiorari shall be computed from notice of the denial of such motion. (Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Del Villar,  632 SCRA  293 [2010])