CASE 2016-0064: MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,  V.  N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION, INC., (G.R. 208181, 31 AUGUST 2016, , PEREZ J.) (SUBJECT/S: HOW TO COUNT THE 60 DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI) (BRIEF TITLE: MERALCO VS. N.E. MAGNO CONSTRUCTION)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER FILED ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEYOND 60 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF DENIAL OF THEIR FIRST MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BUT WITHIN THE 60 DAYS FROM DENIAL OF THEIR SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. WAS SUCH PETITION FILED ON TIME?

 

NO.

 

THE RULE CLEARLY STATES THAT THE 60 DAY PERIOD SHALL BE FROM NOTICE OF THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IF ONE WAS FILED.

 

PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RAISED NEW MATTERS. THEREFORE THE 60 DAY PERIOD MUST RUN FROM NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. IT THIS CORRECT?

 

NO. OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE NO END IN THE LITIGATION.

 

THE FINALITY OF A DECISION IS A JURISDICTIONAL EVENT WHICH CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND ON THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES.24 TO RULE OTHERWISE WOULD COMPLETELY NEGATE THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE ON COMPLETENESS OF SERVICE, WHICH IS TO PLACE THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENT AND PROCESSES BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PARTY TO DETERMINE AT HIS PLEASURE.25

 

IS THE 60 DAY PERIOD EXTENDIBLE?

 

NO.

 

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.


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0064-meralco

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.