G.R. No. 248035 - Spouses Park vs. Liwanag

Petitioners Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee are American citizens residing in Makati City, Philippines since 2007 and 2009, respectively. Both are gainfully employed: Park as President of two PEZA-registered companies and Lee as Senior Adviser at BDO’s Korean Desk.
They filed a Petition for Adoption with Change of Name of the minor "Mayca Alegado" a.k.a. "Innah Alegado" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 136, presided over by Judge Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag.

Innah was born on December 13, 2012, in Tuguegarao City and was rescued at 22 days old from a trafficking situation, referred to the DSWD.
Petitioners were granted custody of Innah through a Pre-Adoption Placement Authority dated January 18, 2014, when Innah was just over one year old.
Petitioners previously adopted another girl, Hannah, through domestic adoption, which the RTC had approved in 2016. Hannah is regarded by Innah as her older sister.

The DSWD processed petitioners’ application and issued an Affidavit of Consent on May 30, 2016, instructing them to file the adoption petition within 30 days from receipt.
On September 11, 2017, the RTC ordered the transmittal of the adoption petition to the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB), categorizing the case as inter-country adoption because petitioners are foreigners.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 6, 2017, to reconsider the referral to ICAB and for other procedural reliefs; this was denied on June 19, 2018.
Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration in July 2018, citing a new DSWD memorandum regarding foreign habitual residents and requesting 30 days to secure necessary certifications.
The Second Motion was denied as a prohibited pleading on July 10, 2018.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA on September 12, 2018, assailing the RTC’s orders.
The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on November 21, 2018, for being filed out of time, counting the 60-day period from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration and not the second.
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied on June 19, 2019.

Petitioners sought review under Rule 45 to set aside the CA’s dismissal and have the case remanded to the RTC for continuation of adoption proceedings.
They argued the referral to ICAB was erroneous, the 60-day rule for filing the certiorari petition was miscalculated, and that procedural rules should be relaxed to protect the best interest of the child.

Whether the RTC’s Order referring the adoption petition of foreign petitioners to the ICAB was proper, or whether the petition was correctly filed under the Domestic Adoption Act.
Whether the referral to ICAB amounts to a final order preventing the filing of a second motion for reconsideration.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time, particularly on how the 60-day period should be computed.
Whether strict procedural rules on adoption and filing periods should be relaxed to promote the best interest of the child.
Whether substantial compliance with home study and certification requirements suffices despite technical lapses.