G.R. No. 192908 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), VS. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES, INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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 60day 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 . [24] (Citation omitted and emphasis ours) Nevertheless, Domdom later stated: On the Peoples 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. 077- 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 Courts sound discretion. The present petition may thus be allowed, having been filed within the extension sought and, at all events, given its merits . [25] (Citation omitted and emphasis and underscoring ours) 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 Courts sound discretion . [26] Labao v. Flores [27] 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 perio