Viray v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves Sotera Viray, the petitioner, and the heirs of Cezaria Merendo, the respondents. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in this resolution, but it appears to stem from a case previously decided by the Court of Appeals. 2. Procedural History: Sotera Viray received notice of the denial of her motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals on October 25, 1965. The reglementary period to appeal to the Supreme Court would have expired on November 9, 1965. An extension of 15 days from the expiration of the reglementary period was granted. The petition for certiorari was filed on November 26, 1965, which was beyond the extended deadline of November 24, 1965. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition as filed out of time. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Sotera Viray seeks reconsideration of the Supreme Court's dismissal. She argues that the 15-day extension should be counted from November 10, 1965, because November 9 was an election holiday, and the subsequent 15-day period would have ended on November 25, also a holiday (Thanksgiving Day), allowing her until November 26 to file. The Court finds this argument erroneous, stating the extension effectively granted a 30-day period from October 25, ending November 24, and that the rule excluding holidays does not apply when no act is to be performed on the last day. The petition's substance regarding the trial court's refusal to admit an amended answer is also deemed without merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the extended reglementary period, considering the intervening holidays. Whether the refusal of the trial court to admit an amended answer constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration was denied. The petition for certiorari was deemed filed out of time. The refusal to admit the amended answer was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration was based on an erroneous premise regarding the computation of the extended period. The Court clarified that the extension of 15 days, added to the original 15 days, provided a total of 30 days from October 25, 1965, within which to file the petition. Since October has 31 days, the last day for filing was November 24, 1965. The Court emphasized that the rule excluding the last day of a period when it falls on a holiday applies only to the performance of an act required on that day. In this case, the period for filing the petition expired on November 24, and the fact that November 25 was a holiday did not extend the deadline for filing, as no act was required on November 25 itself. The principle cited from American Jurisprudence supports this, stating that Sunday (or a holiday) is not excluded if there is nothing to be done on that day. On Issue 2: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to admit an amended answer. The Court noted two critical reasons: first, no adequate excuse was provided for the delay in tendering the allegedly correct facts and theory of the case. Second, the proposed amended answer admitted an unauthorized abandonment of the certificate of public convenience, which is a violation of law. Such an admission cannot be used by the petitioner to evade her statutory obligations, as correctly determined by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the trial court's refusal was a proper exercise of its discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that the rule excluding holidays in the computation of legal periods applies only when an act is to be performed on the last day of the period. If no act is required on the last day, the period is computed strictly. The Court also affirmed that the refusal to admit an amended answer, which would withdraw previous admissions and change the theory of the case, does not constitute grave abuse of discretion if no adequate excuse for the delay is offered and the proposed amendment involves an act that is in violation of law.