G.R. No. 139120 -

Ruling

accordingly filed against the non-members of the PDI Board before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. On petition for review by petitioners, the Secretary of Justice, by January 22, 1998 letter-resolution [10] addressed to the Makati City Prosecutor, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent-PDI members of the Board, and reversed the finding of probable cause against all the other respondents. He accordingly directed the withdrawal of the informations filed against the non-members of the PDI Board. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration [11] of the Secretary of Justice's January 22, 1998 letter-resolution having been denied by letter-resolution [12] of August 26, 1998 addressed to petitioners' counsel, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. By Resolution of February 8, 1999, the appellate court dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari for failure to timely file it, following Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, [13] which reads: RULE 65 Sec. 4. Where and when petition to be filed .The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court x x x x If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted.If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis supplied) Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari, anchored on the following grounds: I IN DISMISSING THE PETITION BELOW, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD SANCTIONED THE PATENTLY ERRONEOUS EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION AND MANIFEST DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES BY RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE -- THIS, MERELY UPON A MINOR TECHNICAL ERROR WHEN CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE HELD SWAY.THUS: THE NEGLIGIBLE DELAY IN THE FILING OF THE PETITION WAS PURELY A TECHNICAL ERROR CAUSED BY EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE AND OVERSIGHT,WHICH IS FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE COMPELLING THE ADMISSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION BELOW. CONSIDERING THAT VIRTUALLY THE SAME ISSUES BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES ARE IN ANY CASE ALSO RAISED IN CA-GR NO. 51135 BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THERE BEING NO PREJUDICE OR DAMAGE WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT TO THE RESPONDENTS, THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITION AND THE CONSOLIDATION THEREOF WITH CA-GR NO. 51135 WOULD BE IN ORDER TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT DISPOSITION OF CASES. THE PETITION INVOLVES CONTUMACIOUS VIOLATIONS OF LIBEL LAW REPEATED SEVEN TIMES, WHICH THE STATE HAS THE INTEREST, NAY THE