Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Monetary Board (MB) of the Central Bank of the Philippines closed the Rural Bank of Muntinlupa, Inc. (RBMI) due to insolvency and placed it under receivership, appointing the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as receiver. Subsequently, the MB ordered the liquidation of RBMI. PDIC filed a petition for assistance in liquidation, which was initially dismissed by the Liquidation Court finding only liquidity problems, not insolvency. The Central Bank filed a certiorari petition, and the Court of Appeals (CA) initially remanded the case but later amended its order to nullify the Liquidation Court's orders and direct approval of the liquidation petition. Procedural History: The CA's amended order was elevated to the Supreme Court (SC) in Apollo Salud, et al. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 71630. The SC set aside the CA's resolutions and reinstated its November 22, 1984 decision, remanding the case to the Liquidation Court to determine if the continuation of RBMI's business would cause probable losses and if the MB resolutions were issued in bad faith or arbitrarily. The Liquidation Court later dismissed the liquidation proceedings without prejudice due to a rehabilitation proposal. PDIC filed a new petition for assistance in liquidation, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted. Private respondent opposed, asserting preferential right to rehabilitate. The RTC denied private respondent's motion for reconsideration. Private respondent then filed a motion to declare PDIC in contempt and to suspend liquidation, and sought a writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC granted the injunction, enjoining PDIC from disposing of RBMI's assets pending final orders, noting a rehabilitation plan was under deliberation. PDIC moved for reconsideration, which was denied. PDIC then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA challenging the RTC's orders. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed PDIC's certiorari petition for having been filed outside the reglementary period. PDIC received the RTC's December 15, 1998 order on January 6, 1999, filed a motion for reconsideration on February 5, 1999 (30 days later), and received the denial of its motion on April 5, 1999. Under the prevailing rule (Circular No. 39-98), PDIC had 30 days from April 5, 1999, or until May 6, 1999, to file its certiorari petition. However, PDIC filed its petition on June 4, 1999, which was out of time. The CA denied PDIC's motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, was correctly applied by the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) for having been filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari: The Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must be filed within the reglementary period. At the time the petition was filed with the Court of Appeals (CA), the prevailing rule was Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, which provided for a period of sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. This period is interrupted if a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed in due time. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but not less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension is granted except for compelling reasons, not exceeding fifteen (15) days. On the application of the reglementary period in this case: In this case, the petitioner PDIC allegedly received the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) order granting the writ of preliminary injunction on January 6, 1999. It filed a motion for reconsideration on February 5, 1999, which interrupted the 60-day period. At that point, 29 days of the reglementary period had lapsed. Consequently, when PDIC received the order denying its motion for reconsideration on April 5, 1999, it had only 31 days remaining within which to file its petition for certiorari, which would be until May 6, 1999, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, PDIC filed its petition with the CA on June 4, 1999, which was well beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Therefore, the CA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition for having been filed out of time. The dismissal was a proper exercise of its discretion based on the procedural rules.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a petition for certiorari filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98.