Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated a decision in CA GR No. 15386 on December 15, 1995. Petitioner, Dra. Josefa E. Nepomuceno, moved for reconsideration on January 12, 1996. The CA required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment within ten (10) days. Procedural History: The OSG filed its comment on June 4, 1996, after more than four months. Petitioner filed a "Motion To Strike Off The Record OSG's Comment dated June 4, 1996" on June 19, 1996, alleging the comment was filed beyond the period fixed by the CA. On September 20, 1996, the CA denied both the motion to strike and the motion for reconsideration. The CA reasoned that it had granted several extensions to the OSG, including a final extension until June 8, 1996, making the June 4, 1996 filing timely. The CA also found the motion for reconsideration to be without merit. The Petition: Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a special civil action for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's denial of her motion to strike and motion for reconsideration, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion To Strike Off the Record OSG's Comment dated June 4, 1996. Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Motion to Strike Off the Record OSG's Comment: The Supreme Court found that the OSG's comment filed on June 4, 1996, was seasonable. The CA had granted several extensions to the OSG, with the last one being a final extension of fifteen (15) days from May 24, 1996, or until June 8, 1996. The comment was filed within this extended period. The Court emphasized that laws and rules should be interpreted in light of surrounding circumstances to afford justice. Allowing the OSG sufficient time to comment on the motion for reconsideration served the interest of substantial justice. Therefore, the CA's denial of the motion to strike was a valid exercise of discretion, not a grave abuse thereof. On the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's finding that the motion for reconsideration was bereft of merit. The grounds raised in the motion had already been considered and passed upon in the CA's decision promulgated on December 15, 1995. No new ground or compelling reason existed to justify a reconsideration of the decision. Thus, the CA's denial of the motion for reconsideration was also a proper exercise of its judicial function.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to strike off the Solicitor General's comment, as the comment was filed within the extended period granted in the interest of substantial justice, and the motion for reconsideration lacked merit.