Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

XXX DIVISION

and

Petitioners,

-versus-

CA-G.R. Case No.

(Civil Case No. )

Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------x

CA-G.R. Case No.

and (LRC Case No. ))
Comment / Opposition to Petition for Certiorari Page 2 of 7

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Petitioners,

-versus-

Respondents,
x-----------------------------------------x

Petitioners,

-versus-

CA-G.R. Case No.

(Civil Case No. )

Respondents,
x-----------------------------------------x

COMMENT / OPPOSITION
(to Petitioners’ 21 December 2015 Petition for Certiorari)

Respondent
, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. In their 21 December 2015 Petition for Certiorari, Petitioners

seek to have the
9 September 2015 and 15 October 2015 Orders of
, Acting Presiding Judge of Branch of the
Comment / Opposition to Petition for Certiorari Page 3 of 7

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Regional Trial Court, which denied their Motion for Extension of Time to
File Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 May 2015 and the Motion for
Reconsideration of the denial thereof declared null and void. Additionally,
Petitioners pray for an Order to compel the Public Respondent to admit
their Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 July 2015.

2. The Petitioners allege that the Public Respondent gravely abused

his discretion in denying their Motion for Extension of Time to File
Motion for Reconsideration considering that (a) there are valid and
reasonable grounds underlying their Motion for Extension of Time to File
Motion for Reconsideration and (b) they raise valid and legal grounds in
their 23 July 2015 Motion for Reconsideration.

3. A careful reading of the present Petition for Certiorari reveals no

valid justification for the reversal of the assailed Orders.

4. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court is clear in its prohibition

against the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration:
Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal; appeal in habeas corpus cases. – x x x
x x x No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed.

5. Accordingly, the Public Respondent did not gravely abuse his

discretion in not granting a relief which is not available in the first place.

6. Moreover, it bears stressing that in the case of Pilapil v. Heirs of

Briones 1, the Supreme Court made it clear that, “compliance with the
procedural rules is the general rule, and abandonment thereof should only
be done in the most exceptional circumstances.”

7. In the case now under consideration, the Petitioners have not

established compelling circumstances that would warrant the relaxation of
the Rules in their favor. Their explanation for the delay in the submission
of their Motion for Reconsideration consists only in the death of their
previous counsel and the resulting need to engage the services of a new
one. Such circumstances can hardly be characterized as extraordinary.

8. In any case, the Petitioners’ actions demonstrate a clear disregard

for the rules. By their own admission, they received a copy of the Joint
Decision dated 15 May 2015 issued by the Public Respondent on 4 June
2015 and thereupon, filed a Motion for Extension to File Motion for

1 G.R. No. 150175, 5 February 2007.

Comment / Opposition to Petition for Certiorari Page 4 of 7

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Reconsideration requesting for a longer period of twenty-five (25) days

from receipt within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration. Such
extension expired on 29 June 20152. However, Petitioners failed to submit
the said pleading on that date and instead, only filed another Motion for
Extension to File Motion for Reconsideration on 10 July 2015, or eleven
(11) days after their requested deadline. Such blatant disregard for the
Rules ought not to be countenanced.

9. In the case of Barangay Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Corner School 3, the

Supreme Court reiterated the principle that, “Utter disregard of [the rules
of procedure] cannot be rationalized by harking on policy of liberal
construction.”

RELIEF

ACCORDINGLY,
respectfully asks this Honorable Court to DENY the present Petition for
Certiorari.

Other equitable reliefs are likewise asked for.

Quezon City, 29 February 2016.

Counsel for the Petitioners

( )

IBP O.R. No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.

2 Petitioners claim that the extension expired on 13 July 2015.

3 G.R. No. 169942, 24 January 2011.
Comment / Opposition to Petition for Certiorari Page 5 of 7

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

IBP Lifetime Member Roll No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.

IBP O.R. No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Compliance in Process

IBP Lifetime Member Roll No.

Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Exemption No.
Comment / Opposition to Petition for Certiorari Page 6 of 7

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Copy furnished:4

Counsels for the Petitioners

4 Due to constraints in distance, time, and manpower, copies of this Comment /

Opposition shall be served on the adverse parties by registered mail with return card.
Comment / Opposition to Petition for Certiorari Page 7 of 7

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Branch , Regional Trial Court