Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a construction contract between Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Philippines (FDIP) and Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI). The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) awarded FDIP P13,579,599.57 plus interest. This award was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court, becoming final in April 2009. In an attempt to satisfy the judgment, FDIP accepted shares of stock in Fil-Estate Industrial Park, Inc. (FEIP) from FEPI, but these shares were later discovered to be worthless as FEIP had ceased operations. Consequently, FDIP refused to pay the sheriff's commission, and the certificate of sale was not executed. 2. Procedural History: Following the discovery that the FEIP shares were worthless, FDIP sought an alias writ of execution from the CIAC, which was denied in an order dated December 6, 2013, and reiterated in a declaration on January 27, 2014. FDIP then filed a motion for additional time to file a petition for certiorari with the CA on February 10, 2014, and subsequently filed its petition for certiorari on February 19, 2014. The CA denied the motion for additional time in a resolution dated February 24, 2014, and denied FDIP's motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated June 3, 2014. FDIP now seeks review of these CA resolutions. 3. The Petition: This petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the CA's denial of FDIP's motion for additional time to file a petition for certiorari. FDIP argues that the CA erred in not granting the extension, citing exceptional circumstances such as the lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy from the CIAC's order, the potential for manifest injustice due to the long-uncollected award, and the need for additional time to investigate FEPI's assets. FDIP contends that the issues, involving mixed questions of fact and law regarding the validity of the auction sale and procedural irregularities, warrant a full review on the merits by the CA to achieve substantial justice, especially given that FDIP has not collected any part of the award for nearly 20 years.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying FDIP's Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari; and whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and June 3, 2014 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is ordered to REINSTATE and ADMIT the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Philippines in CA-G.R. SP No. 133922 and to proceed with the case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari and the existence of exceptional circumstances: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in denying FDIP's motion for additional time to file its petition for certiorari. While the general rule under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court mandates that a petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days, the Court has, in exceptional circumstances and subject to its sound discretion, allowed extensions. The Court reiterated the harmonized rulings in Rep. of the Phils. v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., which clarified that while Laguna Metts Corporation emphasized strict adherence to the 60-day period, subsequent cases like Domdom v. Sandiganbayan relaxed this rule, allowing extensions for compelling and meritorious reasons. The Court noted that the deletion of the clause allowing extensions for compelling reasons by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC did not amount to an absolute prohibition, as there was no express prohibition against such motions. Therefore, motions for extension may still be allowed under exceptional and meritorious cases, guided by the Court's sound discretion and considering factors such as the merits of the case, the existence of special or compelling circumstances, and the avoidance of injustice. The Court found that FDIP presented such exceptional circumstances, including the prolonged non-collection of a substantial arbitral award and the potential for manifest injustice, which warranted the CA's reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in denying Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Philippines' (FDIP) Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari, as exceptional circumstances warranted the grant of such extension to afford FDIP the opportunity to pursue substantial justice and avoid manifest injustice, given the prolonged non-collection of the arbitral award.