CASE #21 - MR - 752 SCRA 216 Adjudication Bureau, through Graft In a long line of cases starting with orders
ne of cases starting with orders and decisions, and large volume of
G. R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015 - ATTY.
JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. MAILA
CLEMEN F. SERRANO, Respondent.
FACTS
 This case arose from an administrative
complaint filed by Atty. Maila Clemen F.
Serrano (respondent) against her
direct superior, Atty. Jacinto C.
Gonzales (petitioner), Chief, Legal
Division of the Philippine Racing
Commission (PHILRACOM), for grave
misconduct, sexual harassment and
acts of lasciviousness.
 To support her complaint-affidavit and
to corroborate her account,
respondent submitted the Joint
Affidavit of her officemates Eva,
Eugene and Roman, who witnessed
the entire “kissing” incident on
November 23, 2000.
 In an Order dated June 27, 2001, the
parties were directed to appear for the
preliminary conference of the
administrative case. Both parties
appeared as directed and agreed to
submit the case for decision based on
the evidence on record and pleadings
filed.
 On March 19, 2002, the Office of the
Ombudsman Administrative
Investigation Officer Marlon T. Molina,
issued a Decision finding petitioner
guilty of grave misconduct.
 Petitioner moved for reconsideration
which the Ombudsman Administrative
Adjudication Bureau denied in the
Order dated September 9, 2002.
 Aggrieved, respondent brought the
case to the CA via a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, attributing grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the
Overall Deputy Ombudsman. On
August 16, 2006, the CA sustained
respondent and rendered the herein
assailed decision.
 Thereafter, petitioner filed an Urgent
Motion for Extension of Time to File
Motion for Reconsideration, but the
CA denied it in a Resolution for being a
prohibited motion.
ISSUE
W/N the Urgent Motion for Extension of
Time to File Motion for Reconsideration is a
prohibited motion.
RULING
Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon, we have
laid down the following guideline:
Beginning one month after the promulgation
of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly
enforced that no motion for extension of
time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration may be filed with the
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the
Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate
Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed
only in cases pending with the Supreme
Court as the court of last resort, which may
in its sound discretion either grant or deny
the extension requested.
Thus, the general rule is that no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration is allowed. This rule is
consistent with the rule in the 2002 Internal
Rules of the Court of Appeals that unless an
appeal or a motion for reconsideration or
new trial is filed within the 15-day
reglementary period, the CA’s decision
becomes final. Thus, a motion for extension
of time to file a motion for reconsideration
does not stop the running of the 15-day
period for the computation of a decision’s
finality. At the end of the period, a CA
judgment becomes final, immutable and
beyond our power to review.
This rule, however, admits of exceptions
based on a liberal reading of the rule, So
long as the petitioner is able to prove the
existence of cogent reasons to excuse its
non-observance. No such reasons were
shown to obtain in this case. Petitioner's
reasons of pressures of work attending to
numerous court trials, preparation of court
case load, are foreseeable and perennial
problems of most trial court judges. Such
reasons are inexcusable, as ordinary
prudence should have prompted him to
secure the services of an independent
counsel to defend his administrative case.
While the CA was correct in denying his
Urgent Motion for Extension to File Motion
for Reconsideration for being a prohibited
motion, the Court, in the interest of justice,
looked into the merits of the case, and
opted to suspend the prohibition against
such motion for extension after it found that
a modification of the CA Decision is
warranted by the law and the jurisprudence
on administrative cases involving sexual
harassment. The emerging trend of
jurisprudence, after all, is more inclined to
the liberal and flexible application of
procedural rules. Rules of procedure exist to
ensure the orderly, just and speedy
dispensation of cases; to this end,
inflexibility or liberality must be weighed.
Thus, the relaxation or suspension of
procedural rules, or exemption of a case
from their operation is warranted only by
compelling reasons or when the purpose of
justice requires it.