Facts:

• The case involves Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc. (petitioner) and La Ville Commercial Corporation (respondent).
• A lease agreement was signed on March 17, 1993, for a parcel of land in Makati City, owned by the respondent.
• The lease was for seven years at a monthly rental of P250 per square meter, with a security deposit of P447,000.
• The petitioner encountered financial difficulties and ceased operations in September 1996, defaulting on rental payments.
• On February 1, 1997, the respondent demanded the petitioner vacate the premises and pay accrued rentals of P740,478.91.
• The petitioner contested this amount, claiming a debt of only P279,400 after applying the security deposit.
• Following failed negotiations, the respondent filed a complaint for illegal detainer with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City.
• The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondent on July 20, 1999, citing the petitioner's breach of the lease agreement.
• The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which upheld the MeTC's decision on June 26, 2000.
• The petitioner filed a Motion for Extension to File a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 21, 2000, after receiving the RTC decision on July 6, 2000.
• The CA granted a non-extendible period until August 5, 2000, for filing the petition.
• The petitioner filed a second motion for extension on August 4, 2000, and submitted the Petition for Review on August 18, 2000, beyond the granted period.
• The CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time on September 26, 2000, and denied the motion for reconsideration on March 22, 2002.
• The petitioner then sought a review from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for review for being filed out of time.
• The Court ruled that the technical rules of procedure should not be di...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals acted within its discretion in dismissing the petition for review as it was filed beyond the non-extendible period granted.
• Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court specifies a fifteen-day period from the notice of the adverse decision to file a petition for review, with only one extension of fifteen days allowed under compelling circumstances.
• The pet...continue reading