Case Digest: PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

436 SCRA 478 (2004), THIRD DIVISION

ARMCO Industrial Corporation filed a bond with respect to the writ of attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Mariano Ong and several defendants in another case. In the said bond, ARMCO and petitioner Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc. (Prudential), solidarily bound themselves to pay all the costs and all damages, which may be adjudged to Ong. However, due to failure of ARMCO to pay the corresponding premiums to the Prudential on the succeeding years, the latter filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Cancellation of Bond and Release of Surety, which the RTC denied.

Prudential subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was also denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari, finding that the petition was filed three (3) days late. The CA also denied the Motion for Reconsideration holding that failure to file the petition within the reglementary period required by law will make the order final and executory. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not delay in filing of Petition for Certiorari may be set aside as a mere technicality

HELD:

Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, certiorari should be instituted within a period of sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and to prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of the parties to a speedy disposition of their case. For these reasons, the 60-day period ought to be considered inextendible.

Further, Rules of procedure prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance therewith is thus mandatory and imperative.

However, the Rules of Procedure may be relaxed “for the most persuasive of reasons.” Concomitant to a liberal application of such rules should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least proffer a reason for its failure to comply therewith. Prudential however failed to persuade the Court to allow extension of time to appeal.