G.R. No. 156211 - Mega-Land Resources and Development Corp. vs C-E Construction Corp.

Petitioner Mega-Land Resources and Development Corporation (represented by its President and General Manager, Sy Siong Lato) and private respondent C-E Construction Corporation were involved in a dispute arising out of an arbitration before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
On June 19, 2002, the CIAC rendered a decision ordering petitioner to pay approximately P18.6 million plus interest to the respondent.
Petitioner received notice of the adverse CIAC decision on June 20, 2002, triggering the reglementary period for appeal under Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Before the CIAC proceedings, petitioner was represented by the Fajardo Law Offices.
On July 4, 2002, petitioner's counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for Review (the “first case”) under CA-G.R. No. 71485, requesting an extension until July 20, 2002, citing the voluminous records and complexity of the case as well as other professional obligations.
On July 5, 2002, petitioner, through its President Sy Siong Lato, filed another Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari (the “second case”) under CA-G.R. SP No. 71504, explaining that due to disagreements with the former counsel, petitioner was in the process of retaining new counsel.

Despite the change of counsel, no withdrawal or clarification was made regarding the previously filed motion by Fajardo Law Offices in the first case.
Both motions for extension were granted by different divisions of the Court of Appeals:

The first case (filed by Fajardo Law Offices) was raffled to the Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division and granted an extension until July 20, 2002.
The second case (filed by Sy Siong Lato) was assigned to the Court of Appeals Fifth Division and similarly granted an extension until July 20, 2002.

Petitioner subsequently secured the services of Atty. Richard S. Flores. On July 15, 2002, Atty. Flores contracted to represent petitioner, and he later filed a Motion for Second Extension of Time to File Petition for Review with Formal Entry of Appearance, requesting an extension until August 4, 2002.
This second motion for extension used the caption corresponding to the second case (CA-G.R. SP No. 71504) and was eventually granted by the Special Third Division on September 16, 2002.

In the first case, no further pleading was filed after the initial extension, and the period to file elapsed on July 20, 2002.
In the second case, the extension granted by Atty. Flores allowed filing until August 4, 2002, but no petition was filed therein.

On August 1, 2002, Atty. Flores filed a Petition for Review, but the caption erroneously indicated the docket number “CA-G.R. No. 71485” (belonging to the first case) instead of referencing the second case.
As a result, the petition was submitted to the Sixteenth Division, notwithstanding that petitioner’s right to file under the first case had already expired, while the timely filing right was only available in the second case.

On September 12, 2002, the Sixteenth Division, in a resolution penned by Justice Buzon, declared the petition for review as untimely, noting that it had been filed on August 2, 2002—twelve days beyond the extended period.
The resolution also noted a defect in the petition concerning the verification and certification against forum shopping, which was executed by Sy without the requisite board resolution.
Meanwhile, in the second case, the Third Division issued a resolution on October 8, 2002, dismissing the appeal for failure to file a petition for review within the extended period.
Subsequently, on October 2, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Sixteenth Division, explaining the filing mishap including the misplaced board resolution and the confusion over the dual docket numbers.
On November 21, 2002, the Former Sixteenth Division, again penned by Justice Buzon, denied the Motion for Reconsideration, reciting all the facts and clarifying that the petition for review was filed beyond the prescribed period due to the anomalous docket number usage.

Petitioner’s negligence is highlighted by the failure to withdraw one of the duplicate motions for extension, thereby creating two parallel cases involving the same parties and cause of action.
There was a consequential typographical error in the caption of the petition for review, with petitioner knowingly or otherwise indicating a docket number that had already lapsed in terms of the reglementary period.
The confusion was compounded by the existence of two separate docket numbers and the failure on the part of petitioner and its new counsel to correct the error, thereby risking an appearance of forum shopping.

Whether the filing of the Petition for Review beyond the reglementary period—due to the erroneous use of the docket number from the first case—amounts to a valid exercise of petitioner's right to appeal the CIAC decision.
Whether petitioner’s counsel’s negligence in failing to correctly reference the appropriate docket number effectively forfeited petitioner’s right to a timely appeal.

Whether the existence of two motions for extension (and thereby two separate cases) should bind or affect the ruling on the petition filed under the wrong docket number.
Whether the uncorrected error regarding docket numbers constitutes forum shopping or a technical defect warranting dismissal of the petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals, particularly the Sixteenth Division, is obliged to rectify the anomaly by transferring the petition to the appropriate case docket (i.e., the second case) or simply dismissing it.
Whether the negligence of counsel, which ultimately resulted in the misfiling, excuses petitioner from the consequences of not adhering strictly to procedural deadlines.