Mayor v. IAC

65 Mayor v.
IAC
period of extension.
G.R. No. 74410 | 1988 | Pontente The appellate court nevertheless also denied the MR in (7)
Sarigumba III, Norberto because petitioner allegedly filed the petition for review 1
PERIODS OF PLEADING day late, it expiring on October 15.
DOCTRINE: When the petitioner asked for an extension of 15 ISSUE:

days, it no longer includes October 1 because that day was W/N the petitioner filed his petition for review on time on
already given to him by Rule 41. The fifteen-day period is on October 16? (YES)
top of October 1. It started on October 2, and ended on
October 16. RULING:
FACTS: Petitioner received a notice of denial of his MR on

Petitioner received the lower court’s decision on August 29, September 30. Under Rule 41, Sec. 3, the last day to perfect
1985. The petitioner filed his MR 15 days (last day for the appeal was October 1. The right to file the petition for
appeal) after, which was September 13. The resolution review would have expired on October 1, not September 30.
denying the MR was received by petitioner on September 30.
The petitioner filed for a motion for extension for 15 days to When the petitioner asked for an extension of 15 days, it no
file a petition for review with the appellate court on October longer includes October 1 because that day was already
1 where he prayed that he be granted 15 days from October given to him by Rule 41. The fifteen-day period is on top of
1, or until October 16. October 1. It started on October 2 and ended on October 16.
Hence, the petition for review was filed on time.
Appellate court granted the motion in (4) on October 8.

Petitioner filed his petition for review on October 16.
FACTS:
Appellate court considered the case dismissed on January
30, it appearing that no petition has been filed within the
This is a case for ejectment filed by Spouses Angeles against court denied the MR and declared that the petition was filed 1
Petitioner Pablo Mayor in the MTC of Pasay City. day late.
MTC Petitioner contends he filed his petition for review on time

● MTC rendered a decision in favor of Pablo. because applying Rule 41, Sec. 3, (2) of the Rules of Court, he
RTC: is allowed a full one day period following that in which he
● RTC reversed MTC decision. received the order of denial of his motion for reconsideration
● Petitioner received the lower court’s (RTC of Pasay within which to perfect his appeal. In this case, the one-day
City) decision on August 29, 1985 period referred to October 1, 1985 because he received the
● The petitioner filed his MR 15 (last day for appeal) days denial on September 30. Hence last day to appeal is October
after, which was September 13 16
● The resolution denying the MR was received by
Meanwhile, Respondent argues that when petitioner filed his
petitioner on September 30
MR on September 13, that was the last day of the period to
CA:
appeal or to file a reconsideration, and when he received the
● The petitioner filed for a motion for extension for 15
denial on September 30, that was also the last day for him to
days to file a petition for review with the appellate court
appeal. If what petitioner filed on October 1 was the petition
on October 1 where he prayed that he be granted 15
itself, it could have been considered on time. But since he did
days from October 1, or until October 16.
not and instead filed a motion for a 15-day extension, the
● Appellate court granted the motion on October 8
extension should be counted from September 30, not from
● Petitioner filed his petition for review on October 16
October 1. Hence last day of appeal is October 15
● Appellate court considered the case dismissed on
January 30, it appearing that no petition has been filed ISSUE:
within the period of extension W/N the petitioner filed his petition for review on time on
October 16? (YES)
Petitioner, through an MR, contends that he filed his petition
for review on October 16, 2:44 pm which was even confirmed RULING:
by the Division Clerk of Court. Nevertheless, the appellate
Lacsamana Ruling: The period for filing a petition for review is
15 days. If a MR is filed with and denied by a RTC, the movant NOTES (if applicable):
only has the remaining period within which to file a petition for
Explanation for 15-day extension:
review. Hence, it may be necessary to file a motion with the CA
for extension of time to file such petition for review.
Assuming that petitioner asked only for a one-day extension,
the last day to file the petition for review would have been
Under the Lacsamana ruling, since petitioner filed his MR on
October 2 (September 30 + 1 day automatically given + 1-day
the last day to appeal, he had only one day to perfect his
extension).
appeal. (+1 day always if MR is filed on last day)
If he asked for two days, it would have been October 3

When does the extended period asked by petitioner to file the
(September 30 + 1 day automatically given + 2-day extension).
petition for review commence to run?
But since he asked for and was given 15 days, the expiry date
Petitioner received a notice of denial of his MR on September is October 16 (September 30 + 1 day automatically given + 15-
30. Under Rule 41, Sec. 3, the last day to perfect the appeal day extension).
was October 1. The right to file the petition for review would
have expired on October 1, not September 30.
When the petitioner asked for an extension of 15 days, it no

longer includes October 1 because that day was already given
to him by Rule 41. The fifteen-day period is on top of October
1. It started on October 2, and ended on October 16.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolutions are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Mayor v. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mayor v. IAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mayor v. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

65 Mayor v.

DOCTRINE: When the petitioner asked for an extension of 15 ISSUE:

FACTS: Petitioner received a notice of denial of his MR on

Appellate court granted the motion in (4) on October 8.

MTC Petitioner contends he filed his petition for review on time

If he asked for two days, it would have been October 3

When the petitioner asked for an extension of 15 days, it no

You might also like