Case Digest: ELENA ONG v. FRANCISCO MAZO, et al.

ELENA ONG v. FRANCISCO MAZO, et al.

431 SCRA 56 (2004), THIRD DIVISION

A complaint for damages was filed by Elvira C. Lanuevo and Charito A. Tomilloso before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against petitioner Elena Ong along with Iluminado J. Caramoan arising from a vehicular accident whereby a bus owned by Ong and driven by Caramoan allegedly bumped a jeep owned and driven by Lanuevo, with Tomilloso as her passenger at the time.

Ong served written interrogatories, filing a motion before the RTC to direct Lanuevo and Tomilloso to answer the interrogatories. RTC denied the motion upon the ground that such constituted a “fishing expedition” which would be more properly ventilated in a pre-trial conference.

Ong filed a motion for reconsideration on which was denied by resolution dated July 4, 2000. Ong filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 4, 2000 after she received the order on July 18, 2000.

CA dismissed the petition on the ground that it was belatedly filed. Hence, this present petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition was filed out of time

HELD:

Section 4 of Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC which took effect on September 1 states that a petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

In Systems Factors Corporation v. NLRC and Unity Fishing Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the Court applied retroactively the above-quoted amended rule on a fresh 60-day period for the filing of certiorari petitions from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Thus, a petition for certiorari admittedly filed past the 60-day period under Section 4, Rule 65, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, but filed on time were considered under the amendment in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, was held to be seasonably filed.

Applying retroactively too Sec. 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, since Ong‘s petition for certiorari was filed with the appellate court on August 4, 2000, after receipt on July 18, 2000 by petitioner of the order of the trial court denying her motion for reconsideration from which latter date the 60-day period should be reckoned, the petition was seasonably filed. It was thus error for the trial court to dismiss the same.