Case Summary (G.R. No. 212895)
Timeline of Events
On April 26, 2000, CIAC issued a Notice of Award in favor of FDIP, affirming its claim against FEPI. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision, which was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2008. The judgment became final on April 17, 2009, following an Entry of Judgment. After FEPI's attempts to settle the judgment through real properties, FDIP refused due to being a foreign entity restricted from owning real property.
Execution Attempt and Challenges
FDIP later identified shares owned by FEPI in another corporation, which were garnished and auctioned to FDIP. However, these shares proved worthless, leading FDIP to decline payment for the sheriff's commission, thus the certificate of sale was not executed. Subsequently, FDIP filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, which CIAC denied on December 6, 2013.
Procedural History in Appellate Courts
Following the denial of the alias writ, FDIP filed a motion for reconsideration that was also denied. On February 10, 2014, FDIP sought additional time from the CA to file a petition for certiorari, asserting exceptional circumstances under which this extension was warranted. The CA, however, denied this request on February 24, 2014, citing lack of meritorious grounds and procedural missteps by FDIP in failing to file a timely petition.
Grounds for Appeal
FDIP contended that several exceptional circumstances justified the need for an extension, including a lack of speedy recourse after the CIAC’s order, potential unjust repercussions from the execution failure, and the need for additional time to investigate FEPI’s financial standing. These were further asserted as reasons the 60-day period for appeal should be modified.
Arguments from Respondent
In response, FEPI argued that FDIP failed to show compelling merit for its petition. They contended that FDIP had not adhered to procedural rules and did not act promptly during the designated 60-day period. It also claimed that FDIP was bound by the principle of caveat emptor in the auction purchase.
Ruling of the Court
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of FDIP, asserting that the CA erred in denying the motion for additional time. The Court emphasized that while the 60-day filing period for certiorari is generally inextendable, exceptions can apply i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 212895)
Case Background
- The petition for review was filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court on August 1, 2014.
- Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Philippines (FDIP) is the petitioner, while Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) is the respondent.
- The subject of the petition challenges the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 24, 2014, and June 3, 2014, which denied FDIP's Motion for Additional Time to File a Petition for Certiorari.
Factual Context
- On April 26, 2000, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) issued a Notice of Award in CIAC Case No. 42-98, ordering FEPI to pay FDIP P13,579,599.57, plus interest.
- After affirmations from the CA on December 21, 2001, and the Supreme Court on June 18, 2008, the judgment became final on April 17, 2009.
- FDIP refused FEPI's offer of real properties as satisfaction for the judgment due to its status as a foreign corporation.
- FDIP discovered FEPI owned shares in Fil-Estate Industrial Park, Inc. (FEIP), which were garnished in July 2012 and auctioned to FDIP on December 7, 2012.
- The shares were later found to be worthless, leading FDIP to not pay the sheriff's commission and not receive a certificate of sale.
Procedural History
- FDIP filed a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution on July 24, 2013, which CIAC denied on December 6, 2013.
- FDIP's motion for reconsideration was filed on December 27, 2013,