Fluor Daniel, Inc. – Philipppines Vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. G.R. No. 212895. November 27, 2019

Fluor Daniel, Inc. – Philipppines Vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. G.R. No. 212895. November 27, 2019

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10011/

Andres Reyes Jr.

## Issues

The essential issue in this petition is whether or not the CA erred in
denying FDIP's Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for *Certiorari*.

What seems to be a "conflict" is actually more apparent than real. A reading of the foregoing rulings leads to the simple conclusion that Laguna Metts Corporation involves a strict application of the general rule that petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within sixty (60) days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Domdom, on the other hand, relaxed the rule and allowed an extension of the sixty (60)-day period subject to the Court's sound discretion.

Furthermore, in Castells, et al. v. Saudi Arabian Airlines,[26] the Court enumerated the following instances when the period to file a petition for certiorari may be extended:

* (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
* (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure;
* (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default;
* (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
* (5) the merits of the case;
* (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules;
* (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
* (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
* (9) fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence without appellant's fault;
* (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
* (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
* (12) importance of the issues involved; and
* (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. (Citation omitted and underscoring ours)

Given the law, the Court recapitulates the material facts. The assailed CIAC order was issued on December 6, 2013. FDIP's motion for reconsideration was filed on December 27, 2013. The CIAC reiterated the denial in its Declaration dated January 27, 2014. FDIP filed its Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari with the CA on February 10, 2014; and its petition for certiorari was dated February 19, 2014.

The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all the parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. For, it is far better to dispose of a case on the merits which is a primordial end rather than on a technicality, if it be the case that may result in injustice.

## Decisions

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and June 3, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13392 are hereby 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.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.