G.R. No.

192908

August 22, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, re rese!te" #$ t%e &EPART'ENT OF PUBLIC (OR)S AN& HIGH(A*S +&P(H,, Petitioner, vs. ST. -INCENT &E PAUL COLLEGES, INC., Respondent. DECISION RE*ES, J.: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, where petitioner Repu!li" of the Philippines #Repu!li"$, represented !% the Depart&ent of Pu!li" 'or(s and )i*hwa%s throu*h the Offi"e of the Soli"itor +eneral, ,uestions the resolutions of the Court of -ppeals #C-$ in C-.+.R. SP No. 1/0411, to wit2 1. Resolution dated O"to!er 3/, 4//14 dis&issin* petitioner5s petition for certiorari under Rule 6 for !ein* filed out of ti&e7 and 4. Resolution dated 8ul% 1 , 4/1/3 den%in* petitioner5s &otion for re"onsideration. A!te.e"e!t F/.ts 9he instant "ase arose fro& two "ases filed !% the Repu!li" see(in* e:propriation of "ertain properties in the na&e of St. ;in"ent de Paul Colle*es, In". #St. ;in"ent$. In Civil Case No. //64./4, the Repu!li" sou*ht to e:propriate 1,114 s,uare &eters out of a total area of 6,/60 s,uare &eters of land for the "onstru"tion of the <anila.Cavite 9oll E:presswa% Pro=e"t #<C9EP$. Said propert% !elon*s to St. ;in"ent "overed !% 9C9 No. 9.041161 and lo"ated in Bina(a%an, >awit, Cavite. In Civil Case No. /1//./4, on the other hand, the Repu!li" sou*ht to e:propriate 4,4 / s,uare &eters out of a total area of 1,/31 s,uare &eters, also !elon*in* to St. ;in"ent and "overed !% 9C9 No. 9. 0411?/. Said propert% ad=oins the propert% su!=e"t of Civil Case No. //64./4. Su!se,uentl%, the Repu!li" filed in !oth "ases an a&ended "o&plaint alle*in* that the su!=e"t land ori*inated fro& a free patent title and should !e ad=udi"ated to it without pa%&ent of =ust "o&pensation pursuant to Se"tion 114 of Co&&onwealth -"t No. 141. On -u*ust 1, 4// , the Repu!li" filed in Civil Case No. //64./4 a &otion for the issuan"e of an order of e:propriation. 4 It was *ranted !% the trial "ourt per Order dated -u*ust 16, 4// , rulin* that the Repu!li" has a lawful ri*ht to ta(e the 1,114 s,uare &eters portion of the su!=e"t propert%, with @no pronoun"e&ent as to =ust "o&pensation@ sin"e the su!=e"t propert% ori*inated fro& a free patent. 6 - &otion for the issuan"e of an order of e:propriation was li(ewise filed !% the Repu!li" in Civil Case No. /1//./4 !ut !efore this "ould !e resolved, the Repu!li" &oved to "onsolidate the two "ases, whi"h was *ranted !% the trial "ourt. ?

On Nove&!er 16, 4//6, the trial "ourt denied St. ;in"ent5s &otion for re"onsideration of its Order dated -u*ust 16, 4// *rantin* e:propriation. 0 -s alle*ed in the petition, no appeal was ta(en !% St. ;in"ent fro& said orders.1 -fter al&ost 4 %ears, or on 8ul% 40, 4//0, St. ;in"ent filed a <anifestation with <otion for Clarifi"ation of the Order dated -u*ust 16, 4// , 1/ "ontendin* that althou*h it does not oppose the rulin* re*ardin* the deter&ination of pu!li" purpose and the Repu!li"5s ri*ht to e:propriate the su!=e"t land, it, however, "lai&s that it is entitled to =ust "o&pensation. <eanwhile, the Repu!li" atte&pted to i&ple&ent the Order dated -u*ust 16, 4// !% enterin* the su!=e"t portion of St. ;in"ent5s propert%. -**rieved, the latter de&anded upon the Repu!li" and its a*ents to i&&ediatel% va"ate, and re&ove an% and all e,uip&ent or stru"tures the% introdu"ed on its propert% in a de&and.letter 11 dated O"to!er 3, 4//0. Due to St. ;in"ent5s refusal to honor the order of e:propriation, the Repu!li" filed an ur*ent &otion for the issuan"e of a writ of possession, whi"h was denied !% the lower "ourt in its Order14 dated Nove&!er 4 , 4//64//0. 9he lower "ourt, however, &odified its Order dated -u*ust 16, 4// and re,uired the Repu!li" to i&&ediatel% pa% St. ;in"ent in an a&ount e,uivalent to one hundred per"ent #1//A$ of the value of the propert% sou*ht to !e e:propriated. 9he Repu!li" &oved for re"onsideration !ut it was denied !% the lower "ourt per Order13 dated 8anuar% 41, 4//1 for la"( of fa"tual and le*al !asis. See(in* to avail the e:tra ordinar% re&ed% of certiorari under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, the Repu!li" filed with the C- a &otion for additional ti&e of fifteen #1 $ da%s within whi"h to file its petition. 9he C- *ranted the &otion in its Resolution 14 dated -pril 3/, 4//1 and the Repu!li" was *iven a non.e:tensi!le period of fifteen #1 $ da%s or until <a% 4, 4//1 within whi"h to file its petition for "ertiorari. On -pril 3/, 4//1, the Repu!li" filed its petition for certiorari assailin* the lower "ourt5s orders dated Nove&!er 4 , 4//0 and 8anuar% 41, 4//1 for havin* !een issued with *rave a!use of dis"retion a&ountin* to la"( or in e:"ess of =urisdi"tion. On 8une 11, 4//1, the C-, motu proprio, issued a Resolution1 orderin* the Repu!li" to show "ause wh% its petition for certiorari should not !e dis&issed for !ein* filed out of ti&e, pursuant to -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC. 9he Repu!li" filed its Co&plian"e with E:planation 16 dated 8ul% 1, 4//1 pleadin* for the rela:ation of the rules !% reason of the trans"endental i&portan"e of the issues involved in the "ase and in "onsideration of su!stantial =usti"e. St. ;in"ent filed its Co&&entBOpposition1? dated 8ul% 1 , 4//1 alle*in* a&on* others that the said e:planation is &erel% pro forma due to the Repu!li"5s failure to =ustif% its e:planation. On O"to!er 3/, 4//1, the C- rendered the assailed resolution dis&issin* the Repu!li"5s petition for certiorari on the *round that the petition was filed out of ti&e inas&u"h as

e:tensions of ti&e are now disallowed !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC 10 and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals.11 On Nove&!er 46, 4//1, the Repu!li" filed its &otion for re"onsideration alle*in* that it &erel% relied in *ood faith on the appellate "ourt5s resolution *rantin* the for&er an additional period of fifteen #1 $ da%s within whi"h to file the su!=e"t petition. On 8ul% 1 , 4/1/, the C- rendered the assailed resolution den%in* the Repu!li"5s &otion for re"onsideration, statin* that it "annot diso!e% the rulin* in Laguna Metts Corporation.4/ )en"e, this petition. 9he Repu!li" relies on the C- resolution *rantin* its &otion for e:tension of ti&e and upon the stren*th of the su!stantial &erits of its petition. 9he Repu!li" also invo(es Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, 41 where the Court ruled that a!sent a prohi!ition, &otions for e:tensions are allowed, su!=e"t to the Court5s sound dis"retion. St. ;in"ent, however, "ontends that the present petition fails to neither alle*e an% "ir"u&stan"e nor state an% =ustifi"ation for the deli!erate disre*ard of a ver% ele&entar% rule of pro"edure li(e Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. -nd in the a!sen"e of an% su"h "ir"u&stan"e or =ustifi"ation, the *eneral rule on pro forma&otionsBpleadin*s &ust appl%. T%e Issue 9he Repu!li" dis"ussed the su!stantial &erits of its "ase7 however, the C- did no &ore than in"lude su"h &atters in its narration of fa"ts, and neither did St. ;in"ent dwell on said issues. )en"e, the onl% issue to !e resolved in this petition is whether the C"o&&itted a reversi!le error when it dis&issed the Repu!li"5s petition for certiorarifor !ein* filed out of ti&e, pursuant to -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC. T%e Court0s Ru12!g 'e +R-N9 the petition. 9he Court notes that the C- Resolution dated -pril 3/, 4//1, whi"h initiall% *ranted the Repu!li"5s &otion for e:tension, was pre&ised on the &ista(en notion that the petition filed !% the latter was one for petition for review as a &ode of appeal. 9he C- resolution stated, a&on* others2 @Provided that this <otion for E:tension of 9i&e to Cile Petition for Review is seasona!l% filed, as pra%ed for, : : :.@ 44 9hus, the C- *ranted e:tension inas&u"h as &otions for this purpose are allowed !% the rules. 43 On this s"ore alone, the C- should have ad&itted the petition filed !% the Repu!li" sin"e the latter &erel% relied on its Resolution dated -pril 3/, 4//1 *rantin* the e:tension pra%ed for.

Nevertheless, the C- su!se,uentl% dis&issed the petition filed !% the Repu!li" on the *round that the sa&e was filed out of ti&e, followin* -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC. In its Resolution dated 8ul% 1 , 4/1/, whi"h dis&issed the Repu!li"5s &otion for re"onsideration, the C- also relied on the rulin* in Da*una <etts Corporation that the si:t% #6/$.da% period within whi"h to file a petition for certiorari is non.e:tendi!le. 9he petitioner, however, insists that Do&do& allows e:tensions of ti&e to file a petition. In order to resolve the instant "ontrovers%, the Court dee&s it ne"essar% to dis"uss the relationship !etween its respe"tive rulin*s in Da*una <etts Corporation and Do&do& with respe"t to the appli"ation of the a&end&ent introdu"ed !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC to Se"tion 4, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. Before said a&end&ent, Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 ori*inall% provides2 Se". 4. hen and !here petition filed. E 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the si:t% #6/$ da% period shall !e "ounted fro& noti"e of the denial of said &otion. 9he petition shall !e filed in the Supre&e Court or, if it relates to the a"ts or o&issions of a lower "ourt or of a "orporation, !oard, offi"er or person, in the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed in the Court of -ppeals whether or not the sa&e is in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion, or in the Sandi*an!a%an if it is in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. If it involves the a"ts or o&issions of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed in and "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals. No e:tension of ti&e to file the petition shall !e *ranted e:"ept for "o&pellin* reason and in no "ase e:"eedin* fifteen #1 $ da%s. -s a&ended !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 now reads2 Se". 4. 'hen and where petition filed. E 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the si:t% #6/$ da% period shall !e "ounted fro& noti"e of the denial of said &otion. If the petition relates to an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal trial "ourt or of a "orporation, a !oard, an offi"er or a person, it shall !e filed with the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed with the Court of -ppeals or with the Sandi*an!a%an, whether or not the sa&e is in aid of the "ourt5s appellate =urisdi"tion. If the petition involves an a"t or an o&ission of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed with and !e "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals.

In ele"tion "ases involvin* an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal or a re*ional trial "ourt, the petition shall !e filed e:"lusivel% with the Co&&ission on Ele"tions, in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. In interpretin* said a&end&ent, the Court, in Laguna Metts Corporation, held that2 -s a rule, an a&end&ent !% the deletion of "ertain words or phrases indi"ates an intention to "han*e its &eanin*. It is presu&ed that the deletion would not have !een &ade if there had !een no intention to effe"t a "han*e in the &eanin* of the law or rule. 9he a&ended law or rule should a""ordin*l% !e *iven a "onstru"tion different fro& that previous to its a&end&ent. If the Court intended to retain the authorit% of the proper "ourts to *rant e:tensions under Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 , the para*raph providin* for su"h authorit% would have !een preserved. 9he re&oval of the said para*raph under the a&end&ent !% -.<. No. /?.?. 14.SC of Se"tion 4, Rule 6 si&pl% &eant that there "an no lon*er !e an% e:tension of the 6/.da% period within whi"h to file a petition for "ertiorari. 9he rationale for the a&end&ents under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC is essentiall% to prevent the use #or a!use$ of the petition for certiorari under Rule 6 to dela% a "ase or even defeat the ends of =usti"e. Deletin* the para*raph allowin* e:tensions to file petition on "o&pellin* *rounds did awa% with the filin* of su"h &otions. -s the Rule now stands, petitions for certiorari &ust !e filed stri"tl% within 6/ da%s fro& noti"e of =ud*&ent or fro& the order den%in* a &otion for re"onsideration. 44 #Citation o&itted and e&phasis ours$ Nevertheless, Domdom later stated2 On the People5s ar*u&ent that a &otion for e:tension of ti&e to file a petition for certiorari is no lon*er allowed, the sa&e rests on sha(% *rounds. Supposedl%, the deletion of the followin* provision in Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC evin"es an intention to a!solutel% prohi!it &otions for e:tension2 @No e:tension of ti&e to file the petition shall !e *ranted e:"ept for the &ost "o&pellin* reason and in no "ase e:"eedin* fifteen #1 $ da%s.@ 9he full te:t of Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 , as a&ended !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, reads2 :::: 9hat no &ention is &ade in the a!ove.,uoted a&ended Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of a &otion for e:tension, unli(e in the previous for for&ulation, does not &a(e the filin* of su"h pleadin* a!solutel% prohi!ited. If su"h were the intention, the deleted portion "ould =ust have si&pl% !een reworded to state that @no e:tension of ti&e to file the petition shall !e *ranted.@ -!sent su"h prohi!ition, &otions for e:tensions are allowed, su!=e"t to the Court5s sound dis"retion. 9he present petition &a% thus !e allowed, havin* !een

filed within the e:tension sou*ht and, at all events, *iven its &erits.4 #Citation o&itted and e&phasis and unders"orin* ours$ 'hat see&s to !e a @"onfli"t@ is a"tuall% &ore apparent than real. - readin* of the fore*oin* rulin*s leads to the si&ple "on"lusion that Laguna Metts Corporation involves a stri"t appli"ation of the *eneral rule that petitions for certiorari &ust !e filed stri"tl% within si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of =ud*&ent or fro& the order den%in* a &otion for re"onsideration. Do&do&, on the other hand, rela:ed the rule and allowed an e:tension of the si:t% #6/$.da% period su!=e"t to the Court5s sound dis"retion. 46 Labao v. Flores4? su!se,uentl% laid down so&e of the e:"eptions to the stri"t appli"ation of the rule, viF2 Gnder Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of the 111? Rules of Civil Pro"edure, certiorari should !e instituted within a period of 6/ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order, or resolution sou*ht to !e assailed. 9he 6/.da% period is ine:tendi!le to avoid an% unreasona!le dela% that would violate the "onstitutional ri*hts of parties to a speed% disposition of their "ase. :::: )owever, there are re"o*niFed e:"eptions to their stri"t o!servan"e, su"h as2 #1$ &ost persuasive and wei*ht% reasons7 #4$ to relieve a liti*ant fro& an in=usti"e not "o&&ensurate with his failure to "o&pl% with the pres"ri!ed pro"edure7 #3$ *ood faith of the defaultin* part% !% i&&ediatel% pa%in* within a reasona!le ti&e fro& the ti&e of the default7 #4$ the e:isten"e of spe"ial or "o&pellin* "ir"u&stan"es7 # $ the &erits of the "ase7 #6$ a "ause not entirel% attri!uta!le to the fault or ne*li*en"e of the part% favored !% the suspension of the rules7 #?$ a la"( of an% showin* that the review sou*ht is &erel% frivolous and dilator%7 #0$ the other part% will not !e un=ustl% pre=udi"ed there!%7 #1$ fraud, a""ident, &ista(e or e:"usa!le ne*li*en"e without appellant5s fault7 #1/$ pe"uliar le*al and e,uita!le "ir"u&stan"es attendant to ea"h "ase7 #11$ in the na&e of su!stantial =usti"e and fair pla%7 #14$ i&portan"e of the issues involved7 and #13$ e:er"ise of sound dis"retion !% the =ud*e *uided !% all the attendant "ir"u&stan"es. 9hus, there should !e an effort on the part of the part% invo(in* li!eralit% to advan"e a reasona!le or &eritorious e:planation for hisBher failure to "o&pl% with the rules.40 #Citations o&itted and e&phasis ours$ Note that Labao e:pli"itl% re"o*niFed the *eneral rule that the si:t% #6/$.da% period within whi"h to file a petition forcertiorari under Rule 6 is non.e:tendi!le, onl% that there are "ertain e:"eptional "ir"u&stan"es, whi"h &a% "all for its non.o!servan"e. Even &ore re"entl%, in Mid"#slands $o!er %eneration Corporation v. Court of Appeals,41 the Court, ta(in* into "onsideration Laguna Metts Corporation and Domdom, @rela:ed the pro"edural te"hni"alities introdu"ed under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC in order to serve su!stantial =usti"e and safe*uard stron* pu!li" interest@ and affir&ed the e:tension *ranted !% the C- to the respondent Power One Corporation due to the e:"eptional nature of the "ase and the stron* pu!li" interest involved.

In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we e:plained that the reason !ehind the a&end&ents under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC was to prevent the use or a!use of the re&ed% of petition for certiorari in order to dela% a "ase or even defeat the ends of =usti"e. 'e thus deleted the "lause that allowed an e:tension of the period to file a Rule 6 petition for "o&pellin* reasons. Instead, we dee&ed the 6/.da% period to file as reasona!le and suffi"ient ti&e for a part% to &ull over the "ase and to prepare a petition that asserts *rave a!use of dis"retion !% a lower "ourt. 9he period was spe"ifi"all% set and li&ited in order to avoid an% unreasona!le dela% in the dispensation of =usti"e, a dela% that "ould violate the "onstitutional ri*ht of the parties to a speed% disposition of their "ase. : : :. Nevertheless, in the &ore re"ent "ase of Do&do& v. Sandi*an!a%an, we ruled that the deletion of the "lause in Se"tion 4, Rule 6 !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC did not, ipso fa"to, &a(e the filin* of a &otion for e:tension to file a Rule 6 petition a!solutel% prohi!ited. 'e held in Do&do& that if a!solute pros"ription were intended, the deleted portion "ould have =ust si&pl% !een reworded to spe"ifi"all% prohi!it an e:tension of ti&e to file su"h petition. 9hus, !e"ause of the la"( of an e:press prohi!ition, we held that &otions for e:tension &a% !e allowed, su!=e"t to this Court5s sound dis"retion, and onl% under e:"eptional and &eritorious "ases. Indeed, we have rela:ed the pro"edural te"hni"alities introdu"ed under -.<. No. /?.?. 14.SC in order to serve su!stantial =usti"e and safe*uard stron* pu!li" interest. : : :2 :::: 9he present Petition involves one of those e:"eptional "ases in whi"h rela:in* the pro"edural rules would serve su!stantial =usti"e and safe*uard stron* pu!li" interest. : : : Conse,uentl%, in order to prote"t stron* pu!li" interest, this Court dee&s it appropriate and =ustifia!le to rela: the a&end&ent of Se"tion 4, Rule 6 under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, "on"ernin* the re*le&entar% period for the filin* of a Rule 6 petition. Considerin* that the i&&inent power "risis is an e:"eptional and &eritorious "ir"u&stan"e, the parties herein should !e allowed to liti*ate the issues on the &erits. Curther&ore, we find no si*nifi"ant pre=udi"e to the su!stantive ri*hts of the liti*ants as respondent was a!le to file the Petition !efore the C- within the 1 .da% e:tension it as(ed for. 'e therefore find no *rave a!use of dis"retion attri!uta!le to the C- when it *ranted respondent Power One5s <otion for E:tension to file its Petition for Certiorari.3/ #Citations o&itted and e&phasis ours$ 9o reiterate, under Se"tion 4, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation, the *eneral rule is that a petition for certiorari &ust !e filed within si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order, or resolution sou*ht to !e assailed. Gnder e:"eptional "ir"u&stan"es, however, and su!=e"t to the sound dis"retion of the Court, said period &a% !e e:tended pursuant to Domdom, Labao and Mid"#slands $o!er "ases.

-""ordin*l%, the C- should have ad&itted the Repu!li"5s petition2 first, due to its own lapse when it *ranted the e:tension sou*ht !% the Repu!li" per Resolution dated -pril 3/, 4//17 se"ond, !e"ause of the pu!li" interest involved, i.e., e:propriation of private propert% for pu!li" use #<C9EP$7 and finall%, no undue pre=udi"e or dela% will !e "aused to either part% in ad&ittin* the petition. (HEREFORE, pre&ises "onsidered, the petition is GRANTE&. 9he Resolutions dated O"to!er 3/, 4//1 and 8ul% 1 , 4/1/ of the Court of -ppeals in C-.+.R. SP No. 1/0411 are NULLIFIE&. 9he Court of -ppeals is here!%OR&ERE& to REINSTATE and A&'IT the petition for certiorari filed !% the Repu!li" of the Philippines in C-.+.R. SP No. 1/0411 and to pro"eed with the "ase with dispat"h. SO ORDERED. G.R. Nos. 182382483 Fe#ru/r$ 25, 2010

6AI'E S. &O'&O', Petitioner, vs. HON. THIR& AN& FIFTH &I-ISIONS OF THE SAN&IGANBA*AN, CO''ISSION ON AU&IT /!" THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. DECISION CARPIO 'ORALES, J.: B% -ffidavit of Ce!ruar% 1 , 4//4, )il"oneda P. -!ril, State -uditor ; of the Co&&ission on -udit #CO-$ assi*ned at the Philippine Crop Insuran"e Corporation #PCIC$, re,uested the Offi"e of the O&!uds&an to "ondu"t a preli&inar% investi*ation on the transa"tions.!ases of the "lai&s of 8ai&e S. Do&do& #petitioner$ for &is"ellaneous and e:traordinar% e:penses as a Dire"tor of PCIC, the re"eipts "overin* whi"h were alle*ed to !e ta&pered.1 -fter preli&inar% investi*ation, the Offi"e of the O&!uds&an found pro!a!le "ause to "har*e petitioner with nine "ounts of estafa throu*h falsifi"ation of do"u&ents in view of irre*ularities in nine supportin* re"eipts for his "lai&s for &is"ellaneous and e:traordinar% e:penses, after verifi"ation with the esta!lish&ents he had transa"ted with. It thus dire"ted the filin* of the appropriate Infor&ations with the Sandi*an!a%an. 4 9he Infor&ations were separatel% raffled and lod*ed a&on* the five divisions of the Sandi*an!a%an. 9he Cirst,Se"ond and Cifth Divisions *ranted petitioner5s <otions for Consolidation of the "ases raffled to the& with that havin* the lowest do"(et nu&!er, SB./?.CR<.// 4, whi"h was raffled to the 9hird Division. 3 9he Sandi*an!a%an 9hird Division disallowed the "onsolidation, however, !% Resolutions dated Ce!ruar% 14 and <a% 0, 4//0, it holdin* &ainl% that the eviden"e in

the "ases sou*ht to !e "onsolidated differed 4 fro& that to !e presented in the one whi"h !ore the lowest do"(et nu&!er. It is *athered fro& the re"ords that the Sandi*an!a%an Courth Division also denied petitioner5s <otion for Consolidation. Petitioner thus see(s relief fro& this Court via the present Petition for Certiorari, with pra%er for te&porar% restrainin* order #9RO$ andBor writ of preli&inar% in=un"tion, to en=oin the different divisions of the Sandi*an!a%an fro& further pro"eedin* with the "ases a*ainst hi& durin* the penden"% of this petition. 6 Petitioner ar*ues that, a&on* other thin*s, all the "ases a*ainst hi& arose fro& su!stantiall% identi"al series of transa"tions involvin* alle*ed overstate&ents of &is"ellaneous and e:traordinar% e:penses. Respondent People of the Philippines #People$, in its Co&&ent, ? "ounters that petitioner failed to file a &otion for re"onsideration whi"h is a "ondition pre"edent to the filin* of a petition for "ertiorari7 that the petition was filed out of ti&e sin"e a &otion for e:tension to file su"h (ind of a petition is no lon*er allowed7 that "onsolidation is a &atter of =udi"ial dis"retion7 and that the pro"eedin*s in the different divisions of the Sandi*an!a%an &a% pro"eed independentl% as the Infor&ations "har*ed separate "ri&es "o&&itted on separate o""asions. In the &eanti&e, the Court issued a 9RO0 en=oinin* all divisions of the Sandi*an!a%an fro& further pro"eedin* with the trial of the "ases a*ainst petitioner until further orders. Prefatoril%, the People raises pro"edural ,uestions whi"h the Court shall first address. Con"ededl%, the settled rule is that a &otion for re"onsideration is a "ondition sine ,ua non for the filin* of a petition for "ertiorari, its purpose !ein* to *rant an opportunit% for the "ourt a ,uo to "orre"t an% a"tual or per"eived error attri!uted to it !% a re. e:a&ination of the le*al and fa"tual "ir"u&stan"es of the "ase. 1 9he rule is, however, "ir"u&s"ri!ed !% well.defined e:"eptions, su"h as where the order is a patent nullit% !e"ause the "ourt a ,uo had no =urisdi"tion7 where the ,uestions raised in the "ertiorari pro"eedin* have !een dul% raised and passed upon !% the lower "ourt, or are the sa&e as those raised and passed upon in the lower "ourt7 where there is an ur*ent ne"essit% for the resolution of the ,uestion, and an% further dela% would pre=udi"e the interests of the +overn&ent or of the petitioner, or the su!=e"t &atter of the a"tion is perisha!le7 where, under the "ir"u&stan"es, a &otion for re"onsideration would !e useless7 where the petitioner was deprived of due pro"ess and there is e:tre&e ur*en"% for relief7 where, in a "ri&inal "ase, relief fro& an order of arrest is ur*ent and the *rant of su"h relief !% the trial "ourt is i&pro!a!le7 where the pro"eedin*s in the lower "ourt are a nullit% for la"( of due pro"ess7 where the pro"eedin*s were e: parte or in whi"h the petitioner had no opportunit% to o!=e"t7 and where the issue raised is one purel% of law or where pu!li" interest is involved. 1/
& a vv p h i l

9he Court finds that the issue raised !% petitioner had !een dul% raised and passed upon !% the Sandi*an!a%an 9hird Division, it havin* denied "onsolidation in two resolutions7 that the issue "alls for resolution and an% further dela% would pre=udi"e the interests of petitioner7 and that the issue raised is one purel% of law, the fa"ts not !ein* "ontested. 9here is thus a&ple =ustifi"ation for rela:in* the rule re,uirin* the prior filin* of a &otion for re"onsideration. On the People5s ar*u&ent that a &otion for e:tension of ti&e to file a petition for "ertiorari is no lon*er allowed, the sa&e rests on sha(% *rounds. Supposedl%, the deletion of the followin* provision in Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 !% -.<. No. /?.?.14. SC11 evin"es an intention to a!solutel% prohi!it &otions for e:tension2 @No e:tension of ti&e to file the petition shall !e *ranted e:"ept for the &ost "o&pellin* reason and in no "ase e:"eedin* fifteen #1 $ da%s.@ 9he full te:t of Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 , as a&ended !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, reads2 Se". 4. hen and !here to file the petition. E 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s "ounted fro& the noti"e of the denial of the &otion. If the petition relates to an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal trial "ourt or of a "orporation, a !oard, an offi"er or a person, it shall !e filed with the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed with the Court of -ppeals or with the Sandi*an!a%an, whether or not the sa&e is in aid of the "ourt5s appellate =urisdi"tion. If the petition involves an a"t or an o&ission of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed with and !e "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals. In ele"tion "ases involvin* an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal or a re*ional trial "ourt, the petition shall !e filed e:"lusivel% with the Co&&ission on Ele"tions, in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. #unders"orin* supplied$ 9hat no &ention is &ade in the a!ove.,uoted a&ended Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of a &otion for e:tension, unli(e in the previous for&ulation, does not &a(e the filin* of su"h pleadin* a!solutel% prohi!ited. If su"h were the intention, the deleted portion "ould =ust have si&pl% !een reworded to state that @no e:tension of ti&e to file the petition shall !e *ranted.@ -!sent su"h a prohi!ition, &otions for e:tension are allowed, su!=e"t to the Court5s sound dis"retion. 9he present petition &a% thus !e allowed, havin* !een filed within the e:tension sou*ht and, at all events, *iven its &erits. In 9eston v. Develop&ent Ban( of the Philippines, 14 the Court laid down the re,uisites for the "onsolidation of "ases, viF2

- "ourt &a% order several a"tions pendin* !efore it to !e tried to*ether where the% arise fro& the sa&e a"t, event or transa"tion, involve the sa&e or li(e issues, and depend lar*el% or su!stantiall% on the sa&e eviden"e, provided that the "ourt has =urisdi"tion over the "ases to !e "onsolidated and that a =oint trial will not *ive one part% an undue advanta*e or pre=udi"e the su!stantial ri*hts of an% of the parties. #e&phasis and unders"orin* supplied.$ 9he rule allowin* "onsolidation is desi*ned to avoid &ultipli"it% of suits, to *uard a*ainst oppression or a!use, to prevent dela%s, to "lear "on*ested do"(ets, and to si&plif% the wor( of the trial "ourt E in short, the attain&ent of =usti"e with the least e:pense and ve:ation to the parties.liti*ants. 9hus, in Philippine Savin*s Ban( v. <aHala", 8r., 13 the Court disre*arded the te"hni"al differen"e !etween an a"tion and a pro"eedin*, and upheld the "onsolidation of a petition for the issuan"e of a writ of possession with an ordinar% "ivil a"tion in order to a"hieve a &ore e:peditious resolution of the "ases. In the present "ase, it would !e &ore in (eepin* with law and e,uit% if all the "ases filed a*ainst petitioner were "onsolidated with that havin* the lowest do"(et nu&!er pendin* with the 9hird Division of the Sandi*an!a%an. 9he onl% nota!le differen"es in these "ases lie in the date of the transa"tion, the entit% transa"ted with and a&ountinvolved. 9he "har*e and "ore ele&ent are the sa&e E estafa throu*h falsifi"ation of do"u&ents !ased on alle*ed overstate&ents of "lai&s for &is"ellaneous and e:traordinar% e:penses. Nota!l%, the &ain witness is also the sa&e E )il"oneda P. -!ril. It need not !e unders"ored that "onsolidation of "ases, when proper, results in the si&plifi"ation of pro"eedin*s whi"h saves ti&e, the resour"es of the parties and the "ourts, and a possi!le &a=or a!!reviation of trial. It "ontri!utes to the swift dispensation of =usti"e, and is in a""ord with the ai& of affordin* the parties a =ust, speed% and ine:pensive deter&ination of their "ases !efore the "ourts. -!ove all, "onsolidation avoids the possi!ilit% of renderin* "onfli"tin* de"isions in two or &ore "ases whi"h would otherwise re,uire a sin*le =ud*&ent.14 ')ERECORE, the petition is +R-N9ED. 9he 9hird Division of the Sandi*an!a%an is DIREC9ED to allow the "onsolidation of the "ases a*ainst petitioner for estafa throu*h falsifi"ation of do"u&ents with SB./?.CR<.// 4, whi"h has the lowest do"(et nu&!er pendin* with it. -ll other Divisions of the Sandi*an!a%an are a""ordin*l% ORDERED to forward the su!=e"t "ases to the 9hird Division. SO OR&ERE&. G.R. No. 187985 No8e9#er 1:, 2010

FRANCISCO A. LABAO, Petitioner, vs. LOLITO N. FLORES, A'A&O A. &AGUISONAN, PEPE '. CANTAR, 6ULIO G.

PAGENTE, 6ESUS E. ARENA, CRISPIN A. NA-ALES, OSCAR '. -ENTE, ARTE'IO B. ARAGON, ARNOL& '. CANTAR, ALBERTO T. CUA&ERO, RAS'I E. RON;UILLO, PE&RO R. GABUTAN, ELPE&IO E. 'ENTANG, I (ILFRE&O R. 'I<OSA,IIRO&ERIC) P. NA'BATAC, 'ARCIAL &. RI-ERA, SAN&E E. CASTIL,III CRISOSTO'O B. ESIC, /!" A'BROSIO '. CANTAR,IIII Respondents. DECISION BRION, J.: 'e resolve the petition for review on "ertiorari 1 filed !% petitioner Cran"is"o -. Da!ao #petitioner$ to "hallen*e the de"ision4 and resolution3 of the Court of -ppeals #C-$ in C-.+.R. SP No. /14?4.<IN.4 T%e F/.tu/1 A!te.e"e!ts 9he fa"ts of the "ase, *athered fro& the re"ords, are !riefl% su&&ariFed !elow. 9he petitioner is the proprietor and *eneral &ana*er of the San <i*uel Prote"tive Se"urit% -*en"% #S<PS-$, a li"ensed se"urit%.servi"e "ontra"tor. Respondents Dolito N. Clores, -&ado -. Da*uisonan, Pepe <. Cantar, 8ulio +. Pa*ente, 8esus E. -rena, Crispin -. Navales, Os"ar <. ;ente, -rte&io B. -ra*on, -rnold <. Cantar, -l!erto 9. Cuadero, Ras&i E. Ron,uillo, Pedro R. +a!utan, Elpedio E. <entan*, 'ilfredo R. <iHosa, Roderi"( P. Na&!ata", <ar"ial D. Rivera, Sande E. Castil, Crisosto&o B. Esi", -&!rosio <. Cantar #respondents$ and 8i&&% O. Bi"o%, were S<PS- se"urit% *uards assi*ned to the National Power Corporation, <indanao Re*ional Center #NPC.<RC$, Ditu"alan, Ili*an Cit%. Ea"h of the respondents had a &onthl% salar% of P?,/4/.//. On 8ul% 4?, 4//4, the petitioner issued a &e&orandu& re,uirin* all se"urit% *uards to su!&it their updated personal data files, se"urit% *uard professional li"ense, and other pertinent do"u&ents !% 8ul% 3/, 4//4 for reevaluation in "onne"tion with the S<PS-5s new servi"e "ontra"t with the NPC.<RC. 'hen respondents failed to "o&pl% with the petitioner5s dire"tive, despite several noti"es to do so, the petitioner relieved the& fro& NPC.<RC dut% startin* Septe&!er and O"to!er 4//4, and ordered the& to report to the Senior Operations Offi"er, Ne&esio So&!ilon, for new assi*n&ents. So&eti&e in <ar"h and -pril 4// , the respondents filed individual "o&plaints with the Ili*an Cit% Su!.Re*ional -r!itration Bran"h of the National Da!or Relations Co&&ission #NDRC$ for ille*al dis&issal and &one% "lai&s, "lai&in* the% were "onstru"tivel% dis&issed when the% were not *iven new assi*n&ents for a period of over 6 &onths, despite repeated re,uests for NPC.<RC redeplo%&ent and for new assi*n&ents. 9he "o&plaints were "onsolidated.

9he petitioner and S<PS- denied the "har*e of "onstru"tive dis&issal. 9he% "ountered that the respondents5 relief fro& NPC.<RC dut% was a valid e:er"ise of its &ana*e&ent prero*ative. Curther&ore, the% issued a noti"e #dated 8anuar% 1?, 4// $ 6 dire"tin* the respondents to report to S<PS-5s &ain offi"e for new assi*n&ents, !ut the latter failed or refused to "o&pl% without an% valid reasons. T%e L/#or Ar#2ter Ru12!g In a De"e&!er 4?, 4// de"ision, Da!or -r!iter #D-$ Noel -u*usto S. <a*!anua dis&issed the "onsolidated "o&plaints for la"( of &erit. )e held that the respondents5 relief fro& NPC.<RC dut% was due to their failure to "o&pl% with S<SP-5s re,uire&ent for its e&plo%ees to su!&it updated do"u&ents to &eet NPC.<RC "ontra"t renewal re,uire&ents. -""ordin* to the D-, this was a le*iti&ate e:er"ise of NPC.<RC5s &ana*e&ent prero*ative, in li*ht of the infor&ation it re"eived that so&e se"urit% *uards "arried falsified do"u&ents. ? 9he respondents appealed the dis&issal of their "o&plaints to the NDRC. T%e NLRC Ru12!g In a 8ul% 31, 4//6 resolution, the NDRC affir&ed the D- de"ision. It noted that the respondents5 relief was in *ood faith, without *rave a!use of dis"retion, and in the !est interest of the !usiness enterprise sin"e S<PS- &erel% e:er"ised its &ana*e&ent prero*ative and dis"retion to prote"t its !usiness interest. 0 It also noted that the respondents5 te&porar% off.detail did not e:"eed the 6.&onth period per&itted !% law, sin"e the respondents were dire"ted, throu*h the 8anuar% 1?, 4// noti"e, to report for a new assi*n&ent on 8anuar% 4 , 4// , !ut the% failed or refused to do so. In a Septe&!er 41, 4//6 resolution, the NDRC denied the respondents5 su!se,uent &otion for re"onsideration.19he respondents5 "ounsel, -tt%. De&osthenes R. Plando, re"eived the Septe&!er 41, 4//6 resolution on O.to#er 13, 200=. Ei*ht%.ei*ht #00$ da%s later, or on 6/!u/r$ 9, 2007, the respondents, throu*h their new "ounsel, filed with the C- a petition for "ertiorari under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, alle*in* that the% were infor&ed of the Septe&!er 41, 4//6 resolution on &e.e9#er =, 200=, while Bi"o% re"eived a "op% of the resolution on No8e9#er =, 200=. T%e CA Ru12!g In its Septe&!er , 4//0 de"ision, the C- set aside the NDRC resolution, findin* that the respondents were "onstru"tivel% dis&issed when the% were not *iven new assi*n&ents for &ore than 6 &onths, fro& Septe&!er and O"to!er 4//4, when the respondents were @off.detailed,@ until <ar"h and -pril 4// , when the% filed their individual "o&plaints for ille*al dis&issal. 9he appellate "ourt noted that the 8anuar% 1?,

4// noti"e to report for new assi*n&ents did not toll the 6.&onth @floatin* status@ period sin"e the respondents failed to re"eive the noti"e !efore the appointed date, as S<PS- sent the noti"e !% re*istered &ail, whi"h nor&all% ta(es at least wor(in* da%s to rea"h the intended re"ipients.1/ Cindin* that reinstate&ent was no lon*er via!le under the "ir"u&stan"es, the Cawarded the respondents separation pa% at one #1$ &onth5s salar% for ever% %ear of servi"e, plus full !a"(wa*es, allowan"es and other statutor% !enefits under the law. 9he petitioner and S<PS- &oved for re"onsideration, ar*uin* that the C- should have dis&issed the petition outri*ht for late filin*, and that there was no "o&pellin* reason for the reversal of the D- and the NDRC5s fa"tual findin*s. 11 In its -pril 44, 4//1 resolution, the C- &odified its Septe&!er , 4//0 de"ision !% dis&issin* Bi"o%5s petition for havin* !een filed out of ti&e. )owever, it "onsidered the respondents5 petition as ti&el% filed. It also opined that disre*ardin* an% pro"edural lapses !est served su!stantial =usti"e.14 9he petitioner then filed the present petition. Bi"o%, with respondents Castil, Esi", and -&!ro"io <. Cantar filed a separate appeal, do"(eted as +.R. No. 11/040. 9he Court denied this appeal in its -pril , 4/1/ resolution for late filin* and for non."o&plian"e with Rules 4 and 46 of the Rules of Court. T%e Pet2t2o! 9he petitioner ar*ues that2 #a$ the respondents5 C- petition for "ertiorari was filed 40 da%s late7 #!$ the respondents5 new "ounsel "on"ealed -tt%. Plando5s O"to!er 13, 4//6 re"eipt of the Septe&!er 46, 4//6 resolution and relied on the respondents5 De"e&!er 6, 4//6 noti"e of the resolution7 and #"$ the eviden"e on re"ord supports the D- and NDRC de"isions. T%e C/se >or t%e Res o!"e!ts In "ontrast, the respondents su!&it that2 #a$ De"e&!er 6, 4//6 is the re"(onin* date of the 6/.da% period7 #!$ -tt%. Plando5s O"to!er 13, 4//6 re"eipt did not !ind the& !e"ause his se"retar%, Sonia <. Barna"hea, &ispla"ed the Septe&!er 41, 4//6 resolution and the% should not suffer for her ne*li*en"e7 and #"$ the eviden"e on re"ord does not support the D- and NDRC rulin*s. Issue 9he "ore issues !oil down to whether the C- erred in a"tin* on the respondents5 petition despite its late filin*, and in reversin* the D- and NDRC de"isions. T%e Court0s Ru12!g

(e >2!" t%e et2t2o! 9er2tor2ous. T29e12!ess o> t%e CA et2t2o! >or .ert2or/r2 Gnder Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of the 111? Rules of Civil Pro"edure, 13 "ertiorari should !e instituted within a period of 6/ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order, or resolution sou*ht to !e assailed.14 9he 6/.da% period is ine:tendi!le to avoid an% unreasona!le dela% that would violate the "onstitutional ri*hts of parties to a speed% disposition of their "ase.1 9i&e and a*ain, we have stressed that pro"edural rules do not e:ist for the "onvenien"e of the liti*ants7 the rules were esta!lished pri&aril% to provide order to, and enhan"e the effi"ien"% of, our =udi"ial s%ste&.16 'hile pro"edural rules are li!erall% "onstrued, the provisions on re*le&entar% periods are stri"tl% applied, indispensa!le as the% are to the prevention of needless dela%s, and are ne"essar% to the orderl% and speed% dis"har*e of =udi"ial !usiness.1? 9he ti&eliness of filin* a pleadin* is a =urisdi"tional "aveat that even this Court "annot trifle with. 10 ;iewed in this li*ht, pro"edural rules are not to !e !elittled or dis&issed si&pl% !e"ause their non.o!servan"e &a% have pre=udi"ed a part%Js su!stantive ri*hts7 li(e all rules, the% are re,uired to !e followed.
&avvphi&

)owever, there are re"o*niFed e:"eptions to their stri"t o!servan"e, su"h as2 #1$ &ost persuasive and wei*ht% reasons7 #4$ to relieve a liti*ant fro& an in=usti"e not "o&&ensurate with his failure to "o&pl% with the pres"ri!ed pro"edure7 #3$ *ood faith of the defaultin* part% !% i&&ediatel% pa%in* within a reasona!le ti&e fro& the ti&e of the default7 #4$ the e:isten"e of spe"ial or "o&pellin* "ir"u&stan"es7 # $ the &erits of the "ase7 #6$ a "ause not entirel% attri!uta!le to the fault or ne*li*en"e of the part% favored !% the suspension of the rules7 #?$ a la"( of an% showin* that the review sou*ht is &erel% frivolous and dilator%7 #0$ the other part% will not !e un=ustl% pre=udi"ed there!%7 #1$ fraud, a""ident, &ista(e or e:"usa!le ne*li*en"e without appellantJs fault7 #1/$ pe"uliar le*al and e,uita!le "ir"u&stan"es attendant to ea"h "ase7 #11$ in the na&e of su!stantial =usti"e and fair pla%7 #14$ i&portan"e of the issues involved7 and #13$ e:er"ise of sound dis"retion !% the =ud*e *uided !% all the attendant "ir"u&stan"es.11 9hus, there should !e an effort on the part of the part% invo(in* li!eralit% to advan"e a reasona!le or &eritorious e:planation for hisBher failure to "o&pl% with the rules.
&avvphi&

Neg12ge!.e o> >or9er .ou!se1 #2!"s t%e res o!"e!ts In the present "ase, the respondents5 petition for "ertiorari was filed twent%.ei*ht #40$ da%s late fro& -tt%. Plando5s O"to!er 13, 4//6 re"eipt of the Septe&!er 41, 4//6 resolution. 9he respondents insist that the% should not suffer for -tt%. Plando5s ne*li*en"e in failin* to infor& the& of the Septe&!er 41, 4//6 resolution, and the re"(onin* date for the 6/.da% period should !e their De"e&!er 6, 4//6 noti"e.

9he *eneral rule is that a "lient is !ound !% the a"ts, even &ista(es, of his "ounsel in the real& of pro"edural te"hni,ue.4/ 9he e:"eption to this rule is when the ne*li*en"e of "ounsel is so *ross, re"(less and ine:"usa!le that the "lient is deprived of his da% in "ourt.41 9he failure of a part%5s "ounsel to notif% hi& on ti&e of the adverse =ud*&ent, to ena!le hi& to appeal therefro&, is ne*li*en"e that is not e:"usa!le. 'e have repeatedl% held that!ot2.e se!t to .ou!se1 o> re.or" 2s #2!"2!g u o! t%e .12e!t, /!" t%e !eg1e.t or >/21ure o> .ou!se1 to 2!>or9 %29 o> /! /"8erse ?u"g9e!t resu1t2!g 2! t%e 1oss o> %2s r2g%t to / e/1 2s !ot / grou!" >or sett2!g /s2"e / ?u"g9e!t 8/12" /!" regu1/r o! 2ts >/.e.44 'e "annot sustain the respondents5 ar*u&ent that the% "annot !e !ound !% -tt%. Plando5s ne*li*en"e sin"e this would set a dan*erous pre"edent. It would ena!le ever% part%.liti*ant to render inoperative an% adverse order or de"ision of the "ourts or tri!unals, throu*h the si&ple e:pedient of alle*in* hisBher "ounsel5s *ross ne*li*en"e. 'e thus find that the C- erred in a"tin* on the respondents5 petition for "ertiorari despite its late filin*. 9he NDRC resolution was alread% final and e:e"utor%, and the Chad no =urisdi"tion to entertain the petition, e:"ept to order its dis&issal. I99ut/#212t$ o> NLRC reso1ut2o! 9he NDRC5s resolution !e"a&e final ten #1/$ da%s after "ounsel5s re"eipt, and the respondents5 failure to file the petition within the re,uired #6/$.da% period rendered it i&pervious to an% atta"( throu*h a Rule 6 petition for "ertiorari. 9hus, no "ourt "an e:er"ise =urisdi"tion to review the resolution.43 Needless to stress, a de"ision that has a",uired finalit% !e"o&es i&&uta!le and unaltera!le and &a% no lon*er !e &odified in an% respe"t, even if the &odifi"ation is &eant to "orre"t erroneous "on"lusions of fa"t or law and whether it will !e &ade !% the "ourt that rendered it or !% the hi*hest "ourt of the land. 44 -ll the issues !etween the parties are dee&ed resolved and laid to rest on"e a =ud*&ent !e"o&es final and e:e"utor%7 e:e"ution of the de"ision pro"eeds as a &atter of ri*ht as vested ri*hts are a",uired !% the winnin* part%.4 8ust as a losin* part% has the ri*ht to appeal within the pres"ri!ed period, the winnin* part% has the "orrelative ri*ht to en=o% the finalit% of the de"ision on the "ase.46 -fter all, a denial of a petition for !ein* ti&e.!arred is tanta&ount to a de"ision on the &erits.4? Otherwise, there will !e no end to liti*ation, and this will set to nau*ht the &ain role of "ourts of =usti"e to assist in the enfor"e&ent of the rule of law and the &aintenan"e of pea"e and order !% settlin* =usti"ia!le "ontroversies with finalit%.40 (HEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTE&. 9he assailed de"ision and resolution of the Court of -ppeals in C-.+.R. SP No. /14?4.<IN are RE-ERSE& /!" SET ASI&E. 9he de"ision of the Da!or -r!iter is REINSTATE&. No pronoun"e&ent as to "osts. SO OR&ERE&.

G.R. No. 189191

Fe#ru/r$ 29, 2012

'2"4Is1/!"s Po@er Ge!er/t2o! Cor or/t2o!, Petitioner, vs. Court o> A e/1s, Po@er O!e Cor or/t2o!, Is1/!"s Gr2" Net@orA P%212 &/82" T/!, /!" '/!ue1 L/uro!,B Respondents. DECISION SERENO, J.:

2!es, I!..,

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi!ition filed under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, assailin* the 43 De"e&!er 4//0 and 43 8une 4//1 Resolutions of the Court of -ppeals #C-$.1 9he "ore issue at !en"h is whether the C- had the authorit% to *rant a <otion for E:tension to file a petition for "ertiorari, in the li*ht of our Resolution in -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, whi"h too( effe"t on 4? De"e&!er 4//?. Ca"ts 9he "ase ste&s fro& the Co&plaint for in=un"tion with ur*ent pra%er for te&porar% restrainin* order and preli&inar% in=un"tion #Civil Case No. ?/1 ?.S8$ filed !% <indoro9e"h Servi"es In". #<indoro9e"h$ and petitioner <id.Islands Power +eneration Corporation #<id.Islands Power$ a*ainst respondents Power One Corporation #Power One$, Islands +rid Networ( Philippines, In". #Islands +rid$, David 9an #9an$, and <anuel Dauron #Dauron$. Oriental <indoro Ele"tri" Cooperative, In". #OR<ECO$, an ele"tri" distri!ution "ooperative, entered into an Ele"tri" Suppl% -*ree&ent #ES-$ with Power One as the for&er5s new ele"tri" power provider. Pursuant to the a*ree&ent, Power One was per&itted to install, "onstru"t or a",uire, and operate an ele"tri" *eneratin* fa"ilit% in Oriental <indoro. It was also authoriFed to assi*n its ri*hts, interests, and o!li*ations under the ES- to an affiliate or to a spe"ial purpose "orporation that it &a% or*aniFe for the pro=e"t #pro=e"t "o&pan%$. Curther&ore, Power One was e&powered to for& other "orporations for the purpose of underta(in* various aspe"ts of the ES-. -s part of the a*ree&ent, it was *iven the ri*ht to use the e:istin* Calapan Diesel Power Plant in Oriental <indoro. Power One invited several potential partners to =oin it in a !usiness venture involvin* the &ana*e&ent and operations of its ES- with OR<ECO and its e:istin* ES- with Central Ne*ros Ele"tri" Cooperative #CENECO$. Gnder the proposal, the% would for& a =oint venture to !e "alled @<id.Islands Power +eneration Corporation.@ 9his proposed pro=e"t "o&pan% would assu&e all the interests, ri*hts, and o!li*ations of Power One under its ES- with CENECO #ES-.CENECO$ and with OR<ECO #ES-.OR<ECO$. Conse,uentl%, on 4 8une 4//4, Power One entered into a <e&orandu& of -*ree&ent4 #<O-$ with ;i"tor Pas"ual, Caustino Di&, Philip G%, and ;is"al Develop&ent Corporation. 9he <O- stated that the new "o&pan%, <id.Islands Power,

would own and i&ple&ent Phase 1 of ES-.CENECO, whi"h involved e:istin* and proposed power plants in -li=is Distri"t, Ba"olod Cit%7 and Phase 1 of ES-.OR<ECO, whi"h "on"erned the e:istin* Calapan Diesel Power Plant in Calapan Cit%. Gnder the a*ree&ent, the new partners would su!s"ri!e to 61. A7 Power One, throu*h its affiliate "o&pan% Islands +rid, to 41. A7 and a "ertain >enneth G%, to the re&ainin* 1A of the outstandin* "apital sto"( of <id.Islands Power. It was further stipulated that the &ana*e&ent and operations of the newl% or*aniFed pro=e"t "o&pan%, <id.Islands Power, would !e the responsi!ilit% of the new "o.partners of Power One. 9hus, on 1 O"to!er 4//4, !% virtue of an -ssi*n&ent <e&orandu&, 3 Power One assi*ned its two ES-s to <id.Islands Power and notified OR<ECO a""ordin*l%. In turn, OR<ECO a"(nowled*ed the assu&ption !% <id.Islands Power of the ri*hts, interests, and o!li*ations of Power One under the ES-.OR<ECO. In 8ul% 4// ;i"tor Pas"ual, Caustino Di&, Philip G%, and Container Corporation of the Philippines4 #"olle"tivel%, Pas"ual et al.$ entered into a Revised <e&orandu& of -*ree&ent #Revised <O-$ with Power One, in whi"h the parties a*reed to shelve the CENECO pro=e"t. Instead, the% de"ided to fo"us on Phase 1 of the OR<ECO pro=e"t and to add Phase 4 of the ES-.OR<ECO to their =oint venture. Curther&ore, the parties stipulated that the% would for& @an O K < Co&pan%,@ whi"h would operate and &ana*e the Calapan Diesel Power Plant on !ehalf of <id.Islands Power. It was a*reed that Pas"ual et al. would own and su!s"ri!e to 0/A and Power One, throu*h Islands +rid, to 4/A of the sto"(s of the @O K < Co&pan%@ that would !e for&ed. 9he !usiness relations !etween Power One and Pas"ual et al. eventuall% turned thorn%. On various dates in <a% 4//6, respondent 9an E on !ehalf of Power One E sent "orresponden"es6 to <id.Islands Power. -n issue raised therein was the latter5s ina!ilit% to fulfill its "o&&it&ent to "o&plete "ertain aspe"ts of the OR<ECO pro=e"t within their set deadlines. Power One reiterated that the ti&el% "o&pletion of Phase 1 of the ESwould !e "riti"al to the a"hieve&ent of their profit *oals. It insisted that <id.Islands Power should de"ide and a"t faster so that the dela%s in finishin* the pro=e"ts would !e "ut !% half. Cor its part, <id.Islands Power !roa"hed several issues "on"ernin* its &onetar% advan"es, future finan"in* arran*e&ents, and proposed revision of the provisions on shareholdin*s in their Revised <O-. - further e:"han*e of "orresponden"es ensued,? with !oth parties raisin* various "on"erns, su"h as la"( of the re,uired finan"in* for the OR<ECO pro=e"t7 the ina!ilit% of Pas"ual et al., throu*h <id.Islands Power, to "o&plete Phases 1 and 4 of the OR<ECO pro=e"t7 and ineffi"ien"% in the &ana*e&ent of the <id.Islands Power =oint venture. Conse,uentl%, in a de&and letter 0 sent to Pas"ual et al. throu*h <id.Islands, Power One as(ed for the spe"ifi" perfor&an"e of Pas"ual et al.5s o!li*ations under the Revised <O-. Power One asserted that the "ontinued dela% in finishin* the OR<ECO pro=e"t had alread% resulted in a redu"tion of the ele"tri"it% *enerated to less than /A of "apa"it%. Power One then infor&ed <id.Islands that their ri*ht to suppl% power to OR<ECO and NPC, as well as to o""up% and operate the leased fa"ilities of N-POCOR, had not ta(en effe"t.

Power One alle*ed that it had alread% infor&ed OR<ECO that the assi*n&ent of the ES- in favor of <id.Islands Power had not ta(en effe"t as of 3/ -pril 4//6 !e"ause of the latter5s ina!ilit% to fulfill its o!li*ations under the Revised <O-. Curther&ore, Power One infor&ed <id.Islands Power that OR<ECO had supposedl% noti"ed that another "o&pan%, <indoro9e"h, had !een operatin* the Calapan Diesel Power Plant in violation of the ES-. Power One thus sou*ht an e:planation of the role of <indoro9e"h and de&anded that <id.Islands provide a "lear plan on how the latter would "o&plete Phase 1 of the OR<ECO pro=e"t. Su!se,uentl%, on 11 -u*ust 4//6, Power One and Islands +rid !arred <id.Islands Power and <indoro9e"h fro& enterin* the Calapan Diesel Power Plant. On 11 Septe&!er 4//6, <indoro9e"h and petitioner <id.Islands Power filed a Co&plaint #Civil Case No. ?/1 ?.S8$ a*ainst respondents Power One, Islands +rid, 9an, and Dauron. 9he "o&plainants ar*ued that, sin"e the interests, ri*hts, and o!li*ations of respondents had alread% !een transferred, respondents &ust !e restrained fro& preventin* the& fro& perfor&in* their lawful and valid o!li*ations under the ES- and the Revised <O-. Respondents opposed the Co&plaint and ar*ued that the assi*n&ent of the ES-.OR<ECO did not !e"o&e effe"tive, sin"e "ertain "onditions under the Revised <O- had not %et !een fulfilled. -""ordin* to respondents, the Calapan Diesel Power Plant "ould not !e "o&&er"iall% operated unless the "onditions were satisfied7 and until due "onsultation with OR<ECO was held, and the latter5s approval o!tained. 9he Pasi* Cit% Re*ional 9rial Court #Pasi* R9C$ issued a ?4.hour te&porar% restrainin* order #9RO$ to Power One, Islands +rid, 9an, and Dauron. -t the "ontinuation of the hearin* on the issuan"e of a preli&inar% in=un"tion, the parties a*reed to the poli"% of @no tou"h,@ in whi"h none of the parties would enter the "ontrol and the en*ine roo&s of the power plant. 9he% also a*reed to an interi& "o&pro&ise operation of the power plant. In the &eanti&e, the !ran"h sheriff of the Pasi* R9C pla"ed the operation of the power plant under the responsi!ilit% of <id.Islands Power and <indoro9e"h. )owever, on 4/ O"to!er 4//6 and durin* the penden"% of the Co&plaint filed !% <indoro9e"h and <id.Islands Power, OR<ECO filed a separate Co&plaint #Civil Case No. C;./6. 601$ a*ainst Power One for spe"ifi" perfor&an"e of "ontra"t, with an appli"ation for preli&inar% &andator% in=un"tion and da&a*es !efore the R9C in Calapan Cit% #Calapan R9C$.1 On the sa&e da%, the trial "ourt issued a ?4.hour 9RO "o&&andin* Power One to perfor& and "o&pl% with the latter5s o!li*ation to i&&ediatel% operate the Calapan Diesel Power Plant pursuant to the ES-.OR<ECO. 9he Order also dire"ted that, if Power One failed to perfor& its o!li*ation, OR<ECO would !e authoriFed to operate the power plant. 9he sheriff of Calapan R9C eventuall% turned over to OR<ECO the operations of the power plant and re&oved <id.Islands and <indoro9e"h therefro&. -""ordin* to the Calapan R9C =ud*e, the 9RO was issued to safe*uard pu!li" interest, !e"ause there was an i&pendin* !rownout in the whole provin"e of Oriental <indoro.1/

On 6 Nove&!er 4//6, the Pasi* R9C issued an Order 11 *rantin* the pra%er of <indoro9e"h and <id.Islands Power for the issuan"e of a writ of preli&inar% in=un"tion a*ainst Power One, Islands +rid, 9an, Dauron, and their representatives and a*ents. -""ordin* to the R9C, a"tual and i&&inent dan*er was present. If the e&plo%ees of "o&plainants were prevented fro& operatin* the Calapan Diesel Power Plant, there would !e undue interferen"e with the perfor&an"e of the ES-, whi"h would in turn result in a power "risis in the area servi"ed !% the Calapan Diesel Power Plant. 9he Pasi* R9C noted that pu!li" interest was involved in the full and "ontinuous suppl% of ele"tri"it% in Oriental <indoro. 9hus, pursuant to the writ, <id.Islands Power and <indoro9e"h were allowed to reenter and operate the Calapan Diesel Power Plant. 9hus, on the afternoon of 1/ Nove&!er 4//6, the !ran"h sheriff i&ple&ented the writ of preli&inar% in=un"tion issued !% the Pasi* R9C, whi"h allowed <id.Islands Power and <indoro9e"h to resu&e their operations at the power plant. On that sa&e da%, however, the Calapan R9C issued a separate writ of preli&inar% &andator% in=un"tion a*ainst these two "orporations. Counsel for Power One then went to the power plant and de&anded that <id.Islands Power and <indoro9e"h va"ate the pre&ises. -s !oth parties tried to enfor"e the two separate writs of preli&inar% in=un"tion, whi"h were issued !% two different trial "ourts, trou!le at the power plant ensued. Eventuall%, the Calapan R9C sheriff for"i!l% !ro(e open the doors of the power plant and de&anded that the personnel of !oth "orporations leave the pre&ises. Conse,uentl%, respondents assailed the Order of the Pasi* R9C !efore the C- #C-. +.R. SP No. 1?443$ throu*h a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi!ition. 14 9he% ar*ued that the trial "ourt did not have territorial =urisdi"tion to issue the in=un"tive writ, !e"ause the a"ts sou*ht to !e en=oined had !een "o&&itted in Calapan, Oriental <indoro. On 1/ De"e&!er 4//?, the C- issued a De"ision13 sustainin* the Order of the Pasi* R9C. -""ordin* to the appellate "ourt, the lo"(out indeed happened in Calapan, Oriental <indoro7 !ut sin"e those who had !arred the e&plo%ees of <id.Islands Power &erel% a"ted pursuant to the orders that offi"ials of Power One issued fro& its prin"ipal offi"e in Pasi* Cit%, the a"ts sou*ht to !e restrained had a"tuall% !een "o&&itted within the territorial =urisdi"tion of the Pasi* R9C. On 4 <ar"h 4//0, the appellate "ourt issued a Resolution den%in* the <otion for Re"onsideration of Power One and Islands +rid. -fterwards, on 4/ -pril 4//1, the C- issued another Resolution orderin* the entr% of =ud*&ent of its 1/ De"e&!er 4//? De"ision and E as the =ud*&ent was no lon*er appealed to this Court E su!se,uentl% ruled that the said C- De"ision had !e"o&e final and e:e"utor% on 4 -pril 4//0. <eanwhile, the Pasi* R9C pro"eeded with the &ain a"tion for in=un"tion in Civil Case No. ?/1 ?.S8. On 41 Septe&!er 4//0, it rendered su&&ar% =ud*&ent in favor of <id. Islands Power and <indoro9e"h and &ade the preli&inar% in=un"tion it issued on 6 Nove&!er 4//6 per&anent.14 Pursuant to the Order, Islands +rid and Power One were per&anentl% en=oined fro& "o&&ittin* a"ts that would tend to prevent <id.Islands Power and <indoro9e"h fro& e:er"isin* and perfor&in* the latter two5s ri*hts and o!li*ations in operatin* the Calapan Diesel Power Plant.

On 1 De"e&!er 4//0, Power One filed a <otion for E:tension of ti&e to file its Petition for Certiorari with the C- and pra%ed for a 1 .da% e:tension. -""ordin* to Power One, the Petition would ,uestion the 41 Septe&!er 4//0 Order of the Pasi* R9C *rantin* a per&anent in=un"tion a*ainst the for&er. 1 Power One "lai&ed that on 1/ O"to!er 4//0, it re"eived the Order that *ave it until 1 De"e&!er 4//0 to file a petition for "ertiorari. )owever, it posited that the law%er handlin* the "ase had left the fir&, and that the other law%ers were not a!le to a"t upon the Petition due to @other e,uall% i&portant professional underta(in*.@16 Pendin* the C- resolution on the <otion for E:tension, Power One pro"eeded to file a Petition for Certiorari on 43 De"e&!er 4//0. 9he <otion for E:tension #do"(eted as C-.+.R. SP No. 1/6 11$ was eventuall% *ranted on 43 De"e&!er 4//0.1? <id.Islands Power opposed the Resolution of the C- and ar*ued that the <otion had !een *ranted in violation of -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC. On 43 8une 4//1, the C- denied the <otion of <id.Islands Power, 10 whi"h "onse,uentl% filed the instant Petition. Issue 9he sole issue presented !efore this Court is whether or not the C- "o&&itted *rave a!use of dis"retion, a&ountin* to la"( or e:"ess of =urisdi"tion, in *rantin* respondent Power One5s <otion for E:tension. Dis"ussion -""ordin* to petitioner, the C- "o&&itted *rave a!use of dis"retion in *rantin* Power One5s <otion for E:tension to file a petition for "ertiorari. Petitioner ar*ues that the a&end&ent under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC had alread% deleted the provision that allows an e:tension of ti&e to file a petition under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. Se"tion 4, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, was previousl% worded thus2 SEC. 4. 'hen and where petition filed. L 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the si:t% #6/$ da% period shall !e "ounted fro& noti"e of the denial of said &otion. 9he petition shall !e filed in the Supre&e Court or, if it relates to the a"ts or o&issions of a lower "ourt or of a "orporation, !oard, offi"er or person, in the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed in the Court of -ppeals whether or not the sa&e is in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion, or in the Sandi*an!a%an if it is in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. If it involves the a"ts or o&issions of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed in and "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals. No e:tension of ti&e to file the petition shall !e *ranted e:"ept for "o&pellin* reason and in no "ase e:"eedin* fifteen #1 $ da%s. #E&phasis supplied.$

In a Resolution dated 4 De"e&!er 4//?, the Supre&e Court En Ban" issued -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, whi"h a&ended the afore"ited provision as follows2 Se". 4. 'hen and where to file the petition. L 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s "ounted fro& the noti"e of the denial of the &otion. If the petition relates to an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal trial "ourt or of a "orporation, a !oard, an offi"er or a person, it shall !e filed with the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed with the Court of -ppeals or with the Sandi*an!a%an, whether or not the sa&e is in aid of the "ourt5s appellate =urisdi"tion. If the petition involves an a"t or an o&ission of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed with and !e "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals. In ele"tion "ases involvin* an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal or a re*ional trial "ourt, the petition shall !e filed e:"lusivel% with the Co&&ission on Ele"tions, in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. In Da*una <etts Corporation v. Court of -ppeals, 11 we e:plained that the reason !ehind the a&end&ents under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC was to prevent the use or a!use of the re&ed% of petition for "ertiorari in order to dela% a "ase or even defeat the ends of =usti"e. 'e thus deleted the "lause that allowed an e:tension of the period to file a Rule 6 petition for "o&pellin* reasons. Instead, we dee&ed the 6/.da% period to file as reasona!le and suffi"ient ti&e for a part% to &ull over the "ase and to prepare a petition that asserts *rave a!use of dis"retion !% a lower "ourt. 9he period was spe"ifi"all% set and li&ited in order to avoid an% unreasona!le dela% in the dispensation of =usti"e, a dela% that "ould violate the "onstitutional ri*ht of the parties to a speed% disposition of their "ase. Conse,uentl%, we pronoun"ed that when the C- *ranted the &otion for e:tension, it in effe"t disre*arded and &odified, if not outri*htl% reversed, the Supre&e Court En Ban" Resolution in -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC. 'e then said that in so doin*, the appellate "ourt arro*ated unto itself @a power it did not possess, a power that onl% this Court &a% e:er"ise.@4/ Conse,uentl%, we ruled that petitions for "ertiorari &ust now !e filed stri"tl% within 6/ da%s fro& noti"e of =ud*&ent or fro& the order den%in* a &otion for re"onsideration.41 Nevertheless, in the &ore re"ent "ase of Do&do& v. Sandi*an!a%an, 44 we ruled that the deletion of the "lause in Se"tion 4, Rule 6 !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC did not, ipso fa"to, &a(e the filin* of a &otion for e:tension to file a Rule 6 petition a!solutel% prohi!ited. 'e held in Do&do& that if a!solute pros"ription were intended, the deleted portion "ould have =ust si&pl% !een reworded to spe"ifi"all% prohi!it an e:tension of ti&e to file su"h petition. 9hus, !e"ause of the la"( of an e:press prohi!ition, we held that &otions for e:tension &a% !e allowed, su!=e"t to this Court5s sound dis"retion, and onl% under e:"eptional and &eritorious "ases.

Indeed, we have rela:ed the pro"edural te"hni"alities introdu"ed under -.<. No. /?.?. 14.SC in order to serve su!stantial =usti"e and safe*uard stron* pu!li" interest. 9hus, in 9an v. Ballena, we pronoun"ed2 It is a well.settled prin"iple that rules of pro"edure are &ere tools desi*ned to fa"ilitate the attain&ent of =usti"e. 9heir stri"t and ri*id appli"ation, whi"h would result in te"hni"alities that tend to frustrate rather than pro&ote su!stantial =usti"e, &ust alwa%s !e es"hewed. In de"idin* a "ase, the appellate "ourt has the dis"retion whether or not to dis&iss the sa&e, whi"h dis"retion &ust !e e:er"ised soundl% and in a""ordan"e with the tenets of =usti"e and fair pla%, ta(in* into a""ount the "ir"u&stan"es of the "ase. It is a far !etter and &ore prudent "ause of a"tion for the "ourt to e:"use a te"hni"al lapse and afford the parties a review of the "ase to attain the ends of =usti"e, rather than dispose of the "ase on te"hni"alit% and "ause *rave in=usti"e to the parties, *ivin* a false i&pression of speed% disposal of "ases while a"tuall% resultin* in &ore dela%, if not a &is"arria*e of =usti"e.43 #Citations o&itted.$
&'!phi&

9he present Petition involves one of those e:"eptional "ases in whi"h rela:in* the pro"edural rules would serve su!stantial =usti"e and safe*uard stron* pu!li" interest. It "on"erns the operations and &ana*e&ent of the Calapan Diesel Power Plant E a power.*eneratin* fa"ilit% that supplies ele"tri"it% to Oriental <indoro. It was alle*ed that the dispute !etween the parties had alread% resulted in a redu"ed *eneration of power, whi"h was supposedl% produ"in* ele"tri"it% at less than /A of its "apa"it%. - 9RO had alread% !een issued previousl%, as there was an i&pendin* !rownout in the entire provin"e of Oriental <indoro. Conse,uentl%, in order to prote"t stron* pu!li" interest, this Court dee&s it appropriate and =ustifia!le to rela: the a&end&ent of Se"tion 4, Rule 6 under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, "on"ernin* the re*le&entar% period for the filin* of a Rule 6 petition. Considerin* that the i&&inent power "risis is an e:"eptional and &eritorious "ir"u&stan"e, the parties herein should !e allowed to liti*ate the issues on the &erits. Curther&ore, we find no si*nifi"ant pre=udi"e to the su!stantive ri*hts of the liti*ants as respondent was a!le to file the Petition !efore the C- within the 1 .da% e:tension it as(ed for. 'e therefore find no *rave a!use of dis"retion attri!uta!le to the C- when it *ranted respondent Power One5s <otion for E:tension to file its Petition for Certiorari. -s a final note, we "onve% our stron* disapproval over the failure of Power One5s law%ers to file the Petition within the re*le&entar% period. 9he a&end&ents under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC were &eant to !e i&ple&ented stri"tl%, with a view in &ind that the 6/. da% period to file is a reasona!le and suffi"ient ti&e to prepare a Rule 6 petition. 'or(load and resi*nation of the law%er handlin* the "ase are insuffi"ient reasons to =ustif% the rela:ation of the pro"edural rules. )e should not have left his "lient with this ver% "riti"al pie"e of wor( han*in* in &idair. 'ere it not for the e:"eptional nature of the "ase and the stron* pu!li" interest involved herein, we would have overturned the approval !% the C- of the <otion to e:tend the period to file a Rule 6 Petition. ')ERECORE the Petition is DIS<ISSED. 9he 43 De"e&!er 4//0 and 43 8une 4//1 Resolutions of the Court of -ppeals in C-.+.R. SP No. 1/6 11 are here!% -CCIR<ED.

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 18:220 6u1$ 27, 2009

LAGUNA 'ETTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ARIES C. CAALA' /!" GERAL&INE ESGUERRA, Respondents. RESODG9ION CORONA, J.: 9his petition arose fro& a la!or "ase filed !% private respondents -ries C. Caala& and +eraldine Es*uerra a*ainst petitioner Da*una <etts Corporation #D<C$. 1 9he la!or ar!iter de"ided in favor of private respondents and found that the% were ille*all% dis&issed !% D<C. On appeal, however, the National Da!or Relations Co&&ission #NDRC$ reversed the de"ision of the la!or ar!iter in a de"ision dated Ce!ruar% 41, 4//0. Private respondents5 &otion for re"onsideration was denied in a resolution dated -pril 3/, 4//0. Counsel for private respondents re"eived the -pril 3/, 4//0 resolution of the NDRC on <a% 46, 4//0. On 8ul% 4 , 4//0, he filed a &otion for e:tension of ti&e to file petition for "ertiorari under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. 4 9he &otion alle*ed that, for reasons3 stated therein, the petition "ould not !e filed in the Court of -ppeals within the pres"ri!ed 6/.da% period.4 9hus, a 1 .da% e:tension period was pra%ed for. In a resolution dated -u*ust ?, 4//0,6 the Court of -ppeals *ranted the &otion and *ave private respondents a non.e:tendi!le period of 1 da%s within whi"h to file their petition for "ertiorari. D<C &oved for the re"onsideration of the said resolution "lai&in* that e:tensions of ti&e to file a petition for "ertiorari are no lon*er allowed under Se"tion 4, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as a&ended !% -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC dated De"e&!er 4, 4//?.? 9his was denied in a resolution dated O"to!er 44, 4//0. -""ordin* to the appellate "ourt, while the a&end&ent of the third para*raph of Se"tion 4, Rule 6 ad&ittedl% "alls for stri"ter appli"ation to dis"oura*e the filin* of unwarranted &otions for e:tension of ti&e, it did not strip the Court of -ppeals of the dis"retionar% power to *rant a &otion for e:tension in e:"eptional "ases to serve the ends of =usti"e. -**rieved, D<C now assails the resolutions dated -u*ust ?, 4//0 and O"to!er 44, 4//0 of the Court of -ppeals in this petition for "ertiorari under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. It "ontends that the Court of -ppeals "o&&itted *rave a!use of dis"retion when it *ranted private respondents5 &otion for e:tension of ti&e to file petition for "ertiorari as the Court of -ppeals had no power to *rant so&ethin* that had alread% !een e:pressl% deleted fro& the rules. 'e a*ree.

Rules of pro"edure &ust !e faithfull% "o&plied with and should not !e dis"arded with the &ere e:pedien"% of "lai&in* su!stantial &erit. 0 -s a "orollar%, rules pres"ri!in* the ti&e for doin* spe"ifi" a"ts or for ta(in* "ertain pro"eedin*s are "onsidered /#so1ute1$ 2!"2s e!s/#1e to prevent needless dela%s and to orderl% and pro&ptl% dis"har*e =udi"ial !usiness. B% their ver% nature, these rules are re*arded as &andator%. 1 In De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals,1/ we ruled2 Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 pres"ri!es a period of 6/ da%s within whi"h to file a petition for "ertiorari. T%e =04"/$ er2o" 2s "ee9e" re/so!/#1e /!" su>>2.2e!t t29e >or / /rt$ to 9u11 o8er /!" to re /re / et2t2o! /ssert2!g gr/8e /#use o> "2s.ret2o! #$ / 1o@er .ourt. T%e er2o" @/s s e.2>2./11$ set to /8o2" /!$ u!re/so!/#1e "e1/$ t%/t @ou1" 82o1/te t%e .o!st2tut2o!/1 r2g%ts o> t%e /rt2es to / s ee"$ "2s os2t2o! o> t%e2r ./se.#e&phasis supplied$ 'hile the proper "ourts previousl% had dis"retion to e:tend the period for filin* a petition for "ertiorari !e%ond the 6/.da% period, 11 the a&end&ents to Rule 6 under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC disallowed e:tensions of ti&e to file a petition for "ertiorari with the deletion of the para*raph that previousl% per&itted su"h e:tensions. Se"tion 4, Rule 6 previousl% read2 SEC. 4. hen and !here petition filed. E 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the si:t% #6/$ da% period shall !e "ounted fro& noti"e of the denial of said &otion. 9he petition shall !e filed in the Supre&e Court or, if it relates to the a"ts or o&issions of a lower "ourt or of a "orporation, !oard, offi"er or person, in the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed in the Court of -ppeals whether or not the sa&e is in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion, or in the Sandi*an!a%an if it is in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. If it involves the a"ts or o&issions of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, and unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed in and "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals. No eCte!s2o! o> t29e to >21e t%e et2t2o! s%/11 #e gr/!te" eC.e t >or .o9 e112!g re/so! /!" 2! !o ./se eC.ee"2!g 1: "/$s.14 #e&phasis supplied$ 'ith its a&end&ent under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC, it now reads2 SEC. 4. hen and !here to file petition. E 9he petition shall !e filed not later than si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent or resolution. In "ase a &otion for re"onsideration or new trial is ti&el% filed, whether su"h &otion is re,uired or not, the si:t% #6/$ da% period shall !e "ounted fro& the noti"e of the denial of the &otion.

If the petition relates to an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal trial "ourt or of a "orporation, a !oard, an offi"er or a person, it shall !e filed with the Re*ional 9rial Court e:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a% also !e filed in the Court of -ppeals or with the Sandi*an!a%an, whether or not the sa&e is in aid of the "ourt5s appellate =urisdi"tion. If the petition involves an a"t or an o&ission of a ,uasi.=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, the petition shall !e filed with and !e "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals.
lavvphil

In ele"tion "ases involvin* an a"t or o&ission of a &uni"ipal or a re*ional trial "ourt, the petition shall !e filed e:"lusivel% with the Co&&ission on Ele"tions, in aid of its appellate =urisdi"tion. -s a rule, an a&end&ent !% the deletion of "ertain words or phrases indi"ates an intention to "han*e its &eanin*. It is presu&ed that the deletion would not have !een &ade if there had !een no intention to effe"t a "han*e in the &eanin* of the law or rule. 9he a&ended law or rule should a""ordin*l% !e *iven a "onstru"tion different fro& that previous to its a&end&ent.13
lavvph(l

If the Court intended to retain the authorit% of the proper "ourts to *rant e:tensions under Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 , the para*raph providin* for su"h authorit% would have !een preserved. 9he re&oval of the said para*raph under the a&end&ent !% -.<. No. /?.?. 14.SC of Se"tion 4, Rule 6 si&pl% &eant that there "an no lon*er !e an% e:tension of the 6/.da% period within whi"h to file a petition for "ertiorari. 9he rationale for the a&end&ents under -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC is essentiall% to prevent the use #or a!use$ of the petition for "ertiorari under Rule 6 to dela% a "ase or even defeat the ends of =usti"e. Deletin* the para*raph allowin* e:tensions to file petition on "o&pellin* *rounds did awa% with the filin* of su"h &otions. -s the Rule now stands, petitions for "ertiorari &ust !e filed str2.t1$ @2t%2! =0 "/$s fro& noti"e of =ud*&ent or fro& the order den%in* a &otion for re"onsideration. In *rantin* the private respondents5 &otion for e:tension of ti&e to file petition for "ertiorari, the Court of -ppeals disre*arded -.<. No. /?.?.14.SC. 9he a"tion a&ounted to a &odifi"ation, if not outri*ht reversal, !% the Court of -ppeals of -.<. No. /?.?.14. SC. In so doin*, the Court of -ppeals arro*ated to itself a power it did not possess, a power that onl% this Court &a% e:er"ise.14 Cor this reason, the "hallen*ed resolutions dated -u*ust ?, 4//0 and O"to!er 44, 4//0 were invalid as the% were rendered !% the Court of -ppeals in e:"ess of its =urisdi"tion. Even assu&in* that the Court of -ppeals retained the dis"retion to *rant e:tensions of ti&e to file a petition for "ertiorari for "o&pellin* reasons, the reasons proffered !% private respondents5 "ounsel did not ,ualif% as "o&pellin*. )eav% wor(load is relative and often self.servin*.1 Standin* alone, it is not a suffi"ient reason to deviate fro& the 6/.da% rule.16

-s to the other *round "ited !% private respondents5 "ounsel, suffi"e it to sa% that it was a !are alle*ation unsu!stantiated !% an% proof or affidavit of &erit. Besides, the% "ould have filed the petition on ti&e with a &otion to !e allowed to liti*ate in forma pauperis. 'hile so"ial =usti"e re,uires that the law loo( tenderl% on the disadvanta*ed se"tors of so"iet%, neither the ri"h nor the poor has a li"ense to disre*ard rules of pro"edure. 9he funda&ental rule of hu&an relations en=oins ever%one, re*ardless of standin* in life, to dul% o!serve pro"edural rules as an aspe"t of a"tin* with =usti"e, *ivin* ever%one his due and o!servin* honest% and *ood faith.1? Cor indeed, while te"hni"alities should not undul% ha&per our ,uest for =usti"e, orderl% pro"edure is essential to the su""ess of that ,uest to whi"h all "ourts are devoted. 10 (HEREFORE, the petition is here!% GRANTE&. 9he resolutions dated -u*ust ?, 4//0 and O"to!er 44, 4//0 of the Court of -ppeals in C-.+.R. SP No. 1/4 1/ are RE-ERSE& and SET ASI&E and the petition in the said "ase is ordered &IS'ISSE& for havin* !een filed out of ti&e. SO OR&ERE&. G.R. No. 70203 &e.e9#er 18, 1987 SAL-IO B. FORTUNO /!" CA'ARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATI-E +CASURECO II,, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE 'ERICIA B. PAL'A, 2! %er ./ /.2t$ /s Pres2"2!g 6u"ge o> Br/!.% DDI, Reg2o!/1 Tr2/1 Court, F2>t% 6u"2.2/1 Reg2o!, /!" 6OEL &A-I& S. ABANTE, respondents.

GANCA*CO, J.: 9he issue posed in this petition for "ertiorari and prohi!ition with pra%er for preli&inar% in=un"tion and te&porar% restrainin* order is whether the Re*ional 9rial Court #R9C$ has =urisdi"tion over ,uo warranto pro"eedin*s involvin* the ,ualifi"ation for &e&!ership of the Board of Dire"tors of an ele"tri" "ooperative. Petitioner Salvio B. Cortuno and respondent 8oel David S. -!ante were "andidates for the position of dire"tor to represent Distri"t ; of the Ca&arines Sur II Ele"tri" Cooperative, In". #C-SGRECO II$ at the ele"tions of Ce!ruar% 1, 110 . On 8anuar% 3/, 110 , -!ante filed with the National Ele"trifi"ation -d&inistration #NE-$ a petition to dis,ualif% Cortuno as "andidate alle*in* that he is not a resident of the area "overa*e of Distri"t ; as re,uired !% the B%.laws of the "orporation. 9he NE- dire"ted the C-SGRECO Board of Dire"tors to ta(e appropriate a"tion on the petition in a""ordan"e with the B%.laws and Ele"tion Code. 9he Board indorsed the petition to the Distri"t Ele"tion Co&&ittee #DEC$ whi"h is the !od% "har*ed with the dut% of de"idin* all ele"tion &atters, in"ludin* protests, ,uarries, referrals, postpone&ents and

nullifi"ation. 1 In another letter of Ce!ruar% 4, 110 addressed to DEC, -!ante li(ewise sou*ht the dis,ualifi"ation of Cortuno on the sa&e *round of non.residen"e. 9he DEC dire"ted Cortuno to su!&it his "o&&ent thereto within 40 hours whi"h was dul% "o&plied with. -fter a hearin* on Ce!ruar% 1, 110 , the DEC denied -!anteJs petition to dis,ualif% Cortuno findin* that he is a resident of the area "overa*e of Distri"t ;. On Ce!ruar% 1, 110 , the ele"tion was held as a result of whi"h Cortuno o!tained 1,441 votes while -!ante re"eived 63? votes. -""ordin*l%, the DEC pro"lai&ed Cortuno as the dul% ele"ted dire"tor for Distri"t ;. On Ce!ruar% 1/, 110 , a ,uo warranto petition with pra%er for preli&inar% in=un"tion and te&porar% restrainin* order was filed !% -!ante in the Re*ional 9rial Court of Na*a Cit% do"(eted as No. R9C./ .6/? entitled @8oel David S. -!ante vs. Salvio B. Cortuno, and C-SGRECO II.@ On the da% of the hearin* of the preli&inar% in=un"tion the issue of =urisdi"tion of the trial "ourt over the "ase was raised !% said defendants. On <ar"h 13, 110 , an order was issued !% the trial "ourt upholdin* its =urisdi"tion over the su!=e"t &atter. - &otion for re"onsideration of said order was filed !% defendants !ut this was denied in an order of <ar"h 16, 110 . On <ar"h 10, 110 , the trial "ourt issued an order resettin* the hearin* for preli&inar% in=un"tion on <ar"h 4 , 110 to ena!le defendants to elevate the &atter to the appellate "ourt and issued the restrainin* order en=oinin* Cortuno fro& assu&in* or otherwise perfor&in* the fun"tions of a &e&!er of the Board of Dire"tors of C-SGRECO II until further orders of the Court and the respondent C-SGRECO II to o!serve and i&ple&ent the said restrainin* order. )en"e, the herein petition for "ertiorari and prohi!ition with pra%er for preli&inar% in=un"tion or te&porar% restrainin* order filed on <ar"h 10, 110 with this Court wherein petitioners see( to set aside said orders of <ar"h 16 and 10, !oth of 110 of the trial "ourt and that a restrainin* order !e issued a*ainst the trial "ourt ta(in* further a"tion on the "ase until further orders. On <ar"h 11, 110 , a supple&ental petition was filed !% petitioners infor&in* the Court of the restrainin* order the respondent "ourt issued on <ar"h 10, 110 whi"h in effe"t restrains the "ontinuan"e in the perfor&an"e of the duties of Cortuno as an in"u&!ent &e&!er of the Board of Dire"tors who was ele"ted in 1101 whose ter& of offi"e will end on <ar"h 3/, 110 and that assu&in* that he was not a resident of the area of "overa*e he represents he "annot !e ar!itraril% suspended or re&oved fro& offi"e so that petitioners pra% for a restrainin* order a*ainst the enfor"e&ent of said order and for the respondent 8ud*e fro& ta(in* further pro"eedin*s in the "ase. On <ar"h 4 , 110 , without *ivin* due "ourse to the petition the respondents were re,uired to "o&&ent thereon.

9he "o&&ent thereon havin* !een filed !% the respondents, on O"to!er 1, 110 the Court *ave due "ourse to the petition and re,uired the parties to su!&it their si&ultaneous &e&oranda. Onl% petitioners su!&itted their &e&oranda. 9he "ase is now su!&itted for deli!eration. 9he &ain thrust of the petition is that the respondent "ourt has no =urisdi"tion over the "ase "itin* Se"tion 44 of P.D. 461 as a&ended, whi"h vests in the National Ele"trifi"ation -d&inistration #NE-$ the power of supervision and "ontrol over all ele"tri" "ooperatives as follows2 Se"tion 44. )oard of Directors. L #a$ 9he <ana*e&ent of a Cooperative shall !e vested in its Board, su!=e"t to the supervision and control of NEwhi"h shall have the ri*ht to !e represented and to parti"ipate in all Board &eetin*s and deli!erations and to approve all poli"ies and resolutions.
9he "o&position, ,ualifi"ations, the &anner of ele"tions and fillin* of va"an"ies, the pro"edures for holdin* &eetin*s and other si&ilar provisions shall !e defined in the B%. laws of the Cooperative sub*ect to NE- poli"ies, rules and re*ulations... 2

9hus petitioners ar*ue that2 Pursuant to the authorit% *ranted it !% law, the NE- pro&ul*ated a standard Ele"tri" Cooperative Ele"tion Code whi"h the C-SGRECO II Board of Dire"tors adopted under its Board Resolution No. 1/0, s. 1104, as a&ended !% Board Resolution No. 04.141 #E:h. 4$. 9his Ele"tion Cooperative Ele"tion Code provides for the "reation of a Distri"t Ele"tion Co&&ittee #DEC$ whi"h shall, a&on* other thin*s, Jde"ide on all ele"tion &atters in"ludin* protests, ,ueries, referrals, postpone&ent and nullifi"ationJ #par. f, Se". 46, Ele"tri" Cooperative Ele"tion Code$, Ja"t as Board of CanvassersJ #Se". 46.*, I!id$, and Jpro"lai& the winnin* "andidateJ #Se". /, I!id$. lt is li(ewise vested with the Jsole =urisdi"tionJ over all protests relatin* to the ele"tion of the &e&!ers of the Board of Dire"tors, althou*h its de"ision is appeala!le to the NE- #Se"s. 1, 4, I!id$. -s alread% adverted to a!ove, respondent -!ante filed two for&al "o&plaints ,uestionin* the residen"e ,ualifi"ation of petitioner Cortuno. 9hese two "o&plaints were dul% heard and resolved !% the DEC in its Resolution No. /4 dated 0 Ce!ruar% 110 #E:h. 4$. Abante did not appeal from this +esolution !hich upheld the residence ,ualification of Fortuno. In other words, the Distri"t Ele"tion Co&&ittee whi"h is vested with authorit% to de"ide ,uestions of this nature has alread% ruled that petitioner Cortuno possesses the ne"essar% residen"e ,ualifi"ation, a de"ision whi"h has lon* !e"o&e final, no appeal havin* !een ta(en therefro&. 9he ,uestion, therefore, of CortunoJs alle*ed non.residen"e within the area "overa*e of Distri"t ; had finall% !een resolved !% the dul%

"onstituted and authoriFed ad&inistrative !od% in a""ordan"e with the internal rules and re*ulations of !oth C-SGRECO II and the National Ele"tri" -d&inistration. <oreover, we earnestl% underline the fa"t that i&&ediatel% after the ele"tions on the afternoon of Ce!ruar% 1, 110 , the DEC pro"lai&ed Cortuno as the dul% ele"ted Dire"tor for Distri"t ;. No protest a*ainst petitionerJs pro"la&ation was filed with the DEC, whi"h has the sole *urisdiction to entertain the sa&e, within the re*le&entar% ?4.hour period provided for in Se"tion 1 of the Ele"tri" Cooperative Ele"tion Code. 9herefore, said pro"la&ation &a% no lon*er !e ,uestioned. 9hese fa"ts assu&e *reater si*nifi"an"e when it is re&e&!ered that private respondent -!ante hi&self, in his Certifi"ate of Candida"% #E:h. 3$, e:pressl% a*reed to a!ide !% the Ele"tri" Cooperative Ele"tion Code, there!% pla"in* hi&self s,uarel% within the =urisdi"tion of the provisions thereof.
'e respe"tfull% su!&it, therefore, that inas&u"h as the power to deter&ine and de"ide the residen"e ,ualifi"ation of petitioner Cortuno is vested in, and falls within the pe"uliar fun"tion and "o&peten"e of the NE-, a"tin* throu*h its dul% "reated Distri"t Ele"tion Co&&ittee, that the de"ision rendered !% the latter had alread% !e"o&e final, said resolution &a% no lon*er !e ,uestioned elsewhere. 9he respondent Court thus is without =urisdi"tion and authorit% to review and reverse the aforesaid de"ision of the Distri"t Ele"tion Co&&ittee. 3

In support of petitionersJ theor% the "ases of Lions Clubs #nternational vs. -udge Amores 5 and of )ataan .lectric Cooperative vs. -udge $edro T. Santiago are "ited. : In the ,uestioned order of <ar"h 13, 110 of the respondent "ourt it &ade the followin* dis,uisition2 9he pleadin*s and &otions filed !% "ounsels dis"lose the followin*2 1$ Petitioner 8oel David S. -!ante and respondent Salvio S. Cortuno were the onl% "andidates in the ele"tion for Distri"t Dire"tor, Distri"t ;, C-SGRECO II, In". for the towns of Cana&an, <a*arao and Bo&!on held on Ce!ruar% 1, 110 . 4$ Cew da%s !efore the ele"tion, or on 8anuar% 3/, 110 -!ante in a petition to the National Ele"trifi"ation -d&inistration #NE-$ sou*ht the dis,ualifi"ation of respondent Salvio Cortuno on the *round that the latter was not a resident within the area "overa*e of Distri"t ;, C-SGRECO II. 9he NE- endorsed the petition to the Distri"t Ele"tion Co&&ittee whi"h in resolution No. /4 dated Ce!ruar% 0, 110 denied -!anteJs petition. 3$ - petition for &anda&us with preli&inar% in=un"tion to dis,ualif% Cortuno on *rounds of non.residen"e and to en=oin the C-SGRECO II fro& pro"eedin*s with the ele"tion s"heduled on Ce!ruar% 1, 110 was filed !efore the R9C, whi"h was do"(eted as Civil Case No. R9CJ0 . 11. -fter due hearin* the Court denied the pra%er for

postpone&ent of the ele"tion and dis&issed the petition. 4$ 9he DEC pro"lai&ed Cortuno ele"ted havin* *arnered 1,441 votes as a*ainst -!anteJs votes of 63?. No protest was filed !% -!ante within the ?4.hour re*le&entar% period as alle*edl% provided for in Se"tion 1 of the Ele"tri" Cooperative Ele"tion Code. 9he ele"ted !oard of C-SGRECO II will assu&e their position for a ter& of 3 %ears on <ar"h 3/, 110 . -!ante, "onvin"ed that Cortuno is dis,ualified !e"ause of non.residen"e in the area, filed this present Spe"ial Civil -"tion for Muo 'arranto Respondent Cortuno in raisin* the issue of =urisdi"tion "ontends that =udi"ial intervention is not proper7 that petitioner failed to e:haust ad&inistrative re&edies7 that this Court has no =urisdi"tion over the nature of su!=e"t &atter of the a"tion7 that it is the DEC who is vested with the @sole =urisdi"tion over all protests of dire"tors, althou*h its de"ision is appeala!le to the NE-.@ It is "lai&ed that Courts &a% not intervene in the purel% internal affairs of the "ooperative and in this re*ard, respondent "ited the "ase of the Dions Clu! International vs. 8ud*e -&ores, et al. #141 SCR- 640$ where the Supre&e Court opined that2 @in a""ordan"e with the *eneral rules as to the =udi"ial interferen"e, the de"ision of an unin"orporated asso"iation on the ,uestion of an ele"tion to offi"e is a &atter pe"uliarl% and e:"lusivel% to !e deter&ined !% the asso"iation and, in the a!sen"e of fraud, is final and !indin* on the "ourts.@ But in the sa&e "ase the Supre&e Court also said @9he *eneral rule on non.interferen"e in the internal affairs of asso"iations is, however, su!=e"t to e:"eptions, !ut the power of review is e:tre&el% li&ited. -""ordin*l%, the "ourtshave and !ill e/ercise po!er to interfere in the internal affairs of associations !here la! and *ustice so re,uire , and the pro"eedin*s of the asso"iation are su!=e"t to =udi"ial review where there is fraud, oppression or !ad faith, or where the a"tion "o&plained of is "apri"ious, arbitrary, or un=ustl% dis"ri&inator% #underlinin* supplied, p. 640, ;ol. 141, SCR-$. Para*raph 4 of the verified petition, last senten"e thereof, alle*es @that the DEC with wanton disre*ard of the ele&entar% rules of fair pla%.due pro"ess.ar!itraril% denied petitioners "o&plaint for the dis,ualifi"ation of respondent Cortuno.@ 9his Court finds that hearin* of the petition for preli&inar% in=un"tion would not "onstitute undue interferen"e in the internal affairs of the C-SGRECO II. Respondent C-SGRECO II in support of its o!=e"tion to the *rant of preli&inar% in=un"tion has "ited the "ase of Silon vs. ;era #64, Philippine 060$ to wit2 In ,uo warranto pro"eedin*s instituted for the sole purpose of ,uestionin* the le*alit% of the ele"tion of the dire"tors of a "orporation ... preli&inar% in=un"tion does not he to prevent said dire"tors and offi"ers fro& dis"har*in* their offi"es and

to restore the for&er dire"tors, and the issuan"e thereof "onstitute an e:"ess of =urisdi"tion and a!use of dis"retion. 9he Court has read the "ase and found that the fa"ts of the "ase has no parallel to the "ase at !ar. 9he do"trine laid down in said "ase "annot appl% even !% analo*% to the present "ase. 9he JRepl% to the o!=e"tionJ filed !% petitionerJs "ounsel has "learl% pointed out the stri(in* differen"e !etween the two "ases and the inappli"a!ilit% of said "ase to the "ase at !ar. 9he rule re*ardin* e:haustion of ad&inistrative re&edies is not a!solute e:"ept when there is an e:press le*al provision re,uirin* su"h ad&inistrative step as a "ondition pre"edent to ta(in* a"tion in "ourt. 9his spe"iall% in point ta(in* the fa"t raised !% the respondent that the position is not a pu!li" offi"e whi"h would !e stri"tl% su!=e"t to the hierar"h% of hi*her ad&inistrative offi"es. Cailure to e:haust ad&inistrative re&edies &a% possi!l% affe"t the "ause of a"tion !ut not the =urisdi"tion of the Court. -nother fa"tor, in this parti"ular "ase, is that the petitioner, has no other i&&ediate and ade,uate re&ed% than to *o to "ourt in view of the forth"o&in* assu&ption of offi"e of the new Board of Dire"tors whi"h would not afford suffi"ient ti&e to raise the &atter to the hi*her NEauthorities in <anila. It is to !e noted that this "ase does not involve the validit% of the ele"tion pro"eedin*s, or the nu&!er of votes "ast !ut, si&pl% the ,uestion of whether the respondent is ,ualified or not under the residen"e re,uire&ent of the position for whi"h he was a "andidate. it is therefore a =usti"ia!le "ontrovers%. 'e a*ree. Gnder Se"tion 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court a ,uo !arranto pro"eedin* &a%!e instituted to deter&ine the ri*ht to the use or e:er"ise of a fran"hise or offi"e and to oust the holder fro& its en=o%&ent, if his "lai& is not well. founded, or if he has forfeited his ri*ht to en=o% the privile*e. = 'here the dispute is on the eli*i!ilit% to perfor& the duties !% the person sou*ht to !e ousted or dis,ualified a ,uo !arranto is the proper a"tion. 7 Gnder Se"tion 6, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court it is provided2 SEC. 6. hen an individual may commence such an action. 0 - person "lai&in* to !e entitled to a pu!li" offi"e or position usurped or unlawfull% held or e:er"ised !% another &a% !rin* an a"tion therefore in his own na&e. In this "onne"tion this Court held that an offi"e in a private "orporation is an offi"e of pu!li" "hara"ter in su"h a sense and to su"h an e:tent as to render the re&ed%

availa!le to a person havin* an interest whi"h is in=uriousl% affe"ted. 8 9he a"tion &a% also !e !rou*ht !% a pu!li" utilit% whose ri*hts are invaded !% another. 9 9he Supre&e Court has "on"urrent =urisdi"tion over ,uo warranto pro"eedin*s with the Re*ional 9rial Court in the provin"e in whi"h the defendant or one of the defendants reside, or when defendant is a "orporation, in the provin"e in whi"h it is do&i"iled or has a pla"e of !usiness7 !ut when the Soli"itor +eneral of the Philippines "o&&en"es the a"tion, it &a% !e !rou*ht in a Court of Cirst Instan"e in the Cit% of <anila or the Supre&e Court. 10 Cro& the fore*oin* provision of the rules and rulin*s of this Court, the "on"lusion is ines"apa!le that the ,uo warranto pro"eedin* filed in the R9C of Na*a Cit% ,uestionin* the ,ualifi"ation of petitioner Cortuno is within the =urisdi"tion of said Court. Nowhere in the law "an 'e find an% provision that e:"epts the ele"tri" "ooperatives fro& its "overa*e. 9rue it is that the NE- has supervision and "ontrol over the dire"tors of C-SGRECO II and that under its ele"tion "ode respondent -!ante has the re&ed% of appeal to the NE- within ?4 hours whi"h he did not avail of. Be that as it &a%, it does not deprive said respondent of the ri*ht to avail of the ri*ht to file the ,uo warranto suit when it is shown that the DEC "o&&itted a *rave a!use of dis"retion or otherwise a"ted without =urisdi"tion or in e:"ess of its =urisdi"tion in the resolution of the ,ualifi"ation of Cortuno. 11 9he rulin* of this Court in Lions Club #nternational that the @"ourts will not interfere with the internal affairs of an unin"orporated asso"iation@ "annot appl% to the present "ase as C-SGRECO II is "learl% a dul% or*aniFed private "orporation in the Philippines. Nevertheless, in said "ase this Court held that its pro"eedin*s #Dions Clu!s International$ are nevertheless su!=e"t to =udi"ial review @where law and =usti"e so re,uires, and ...@ where there is fraud, oppression, !ad faith, or where the a"tion "o&plained of is "apri"ious, ar!itrar% or un=ust dis"ri&inator%. 12In the present "ase, -!ante alle*ed in the ,uo !arranto petition that the DEC @ar!itraril% denied petitionerJs "o&plaint for dis,ualifi"ation of respondent Cortuno@ warrantin* the intervention of the "ourts. 13 B% the sa&e to(en the "ase of )ataan .lectric Cooperative is predi"ated on different environ&ental fa"ts. In said "ase, what is ,uestioned is the ,ualifi"ation of the voters who voted for the &e&!er of the !oard of dire"tors and not of the one voted for and further the ele"tions sou*ht to !e prevented had alread% !een held, so that the petition was "onsidered &oot and a"ade&i". 15 ')ERECORE, the petition is DIS<ISSED without pronoun"e&ent as to "osts. SO ORDERED.