G.R. No. 186279 - Land Bank of the Philippines vs. San Juan, Jr.

On February 1, 2008, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division issued a resolution that became the subject of the petition.
On February 4, 2008, petitioner Nilo T. Pates’ counsel received a copy of the February 1, 2008 resolution.
On February 8, 2008, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) of the February 1, 2008 resolution, within four days of receipt.
On September 18, 2008, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration through a resolution, which was also assailed in the petition.
On September 22, 2008, petitioner received the COMELEC en banc’s resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.

The Rules of Court prescribe a 30-day period to file a petition for certiorari from notice of the COMELEC en banc resolution.
The period for filing started running on September 22, 2008, when petitioner received the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner had 26 days remaining (30 days less 4 days used to file the motion for reconsideration) to file the petition. The deadline was October 18, 2008 (a Saturday).
By law, the deadline was extended to October 20, 2008, which was the first working day after October 18.
Petitioner filed the petition on October 22, 2008, two days beyond the deadline.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on November 11, 2008 for being filed out of time.

The petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, reiterating the request for issuance of a temporary restraining order and asking the Court to reverse its dismissal.
Petitioner argued reliance on the “fresh period rule” applied by the Supreme Court starting in 2005, which counts the full period anew from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration, without deducting days spent preparing the motion.
Historically, the petitioner contended, the fresh period rule was the prevailing rule and was reinstated by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC in 2000 after confusion caused by interim rules.
Petitioner cited various Supreme Court cases (Narzoles v. NLRC, Neypes v. CA, Spouses de los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat, Active Realty v. Fernandez, and Romero v. CA) applying or reaffirming the fresh period rule in different contexts.
Petitioner argued that the finality of a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration is the proper starting point for reckoning the appeal period.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked to be excused from filing a separate comment according to Section 5, Rule 65, citing applicable precedent.
Respondent Emelita B. Almirante filed a comment stating:

The Supreme Court correctly ruled that the petition was filed out of time.
Petitioner’s reliance on Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is misplaced because Rule 64, not Rule 65, governs petitions for certiorari from COMELEC decisions.
Rule 65 provides a 60-day period, whereas Rule 64 prescribes a 30-day deadline, which is mandatory and separate.

Whether the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner was timely filed under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court governing COMELEC resolutions.

Whether the “fresh period rule” applies to petitions for certiorari under Rule 64.

Whether there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the liberal application of the Rules of Court in this case to allow the petition despite late filing.