Case Summary (G.R. No. 156211)
Facts of the Case
On June 19, 2002, the CIAC issued a decision ordering Mega-Land to pay C-E Construction Corporation approximately PHP 18.6 million plus interest. Petitioner received notice of this decision on June 20, 2002. Under Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petitioner had until July 5, 2002, to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Filing for Extension of Time
Before the CIAC, Mega-Land was represented by the Fajardo Law Offices. On July 4, 2002, they filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Rule 43, which was assigned docket number CA-G.R. No. 71485 (the "first case"). The motion sought an extension until July 20, 2002, citing voluminous records and complexities as the reasons for delay.
Confusion in Legal Representation
On July 5, 2002, Sy Siong Lato, on behalf of Mega-Land, filed another motion for extension under a new docket number, CA-G.R. SP No. 71504 (the "second case"), indicating a decision to switch counsel due to disagreements with the Fajardo Law Offices. Mega-Land contended that the initial motion filed by Fajardo Law Offices was without their knowledge.
Extension Resolutions and Legal Representation
Both motions for extension were granted by the respective divisions of the Court of Appeals, allowing Mega-Land until July 20, 2002, for the first case and until August 4, 2002, for the second case. Atty. Richard S. Flores was subsequently retained to represent Mega-Land before the Court of Appeals.
Filing of the Petition for Review
On August 1, 2002, Atty. Flores filed a petition for review but mistakenly assigned it the docket number of the first case (CA-G.R. SP No. 71485). This occurred despite the fact that the right to file under that docket number had already lapsed on July 20, 2002.
Court of Appeals Resolution in the First Case
On September 12, 2002, the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the petition filed under docket number CA-G.R. SP No. 71485, noting that it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The division also pointed out defects in the petition's verification by Sy, lacking proper authorization.
Dismissal of the Second Case
The second case was assigned to a different division. On October 8, 2002, this division dismissed the appeal for failure to file the petition for review within the granted extension, ignoring the fact that a prior extension had been granted.
Motion for Reconsideration
Following these dismissals, Mega-Land filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the first case's dismissal on October 2, 2002. In the motion, Atty. Flores attempted to explain the confusion regarding the two separate cases and the misfiling of the petition.
Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
On November 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied Mega-Land's motion for reconsideration, reiterating that the proper petition should have been filed in the second case and rulin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 156211)
Case Background
- The case arose between Mega-Land Resources and Development Corporation (petitioner) and C-E Construction Corporation (private respondent) concerning an arbitration decision made by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
- On June 19, 2002, CIAC ordered the petitioner to pay approximately P18.6 million, plus interest, to the respondent.
- Petitioner received notice of the CIAC decision on June 20, 2002, and had until July 5, 2002, to appeal the decision according to Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Representation and Motions for Extension
- Initially represented by Fajardo Law Offices, the petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for Review on July 4, 2002, which was assigned docket number CA-G.R. No. 71485 (the "first case"). The requested extension was until July 20, 2002.
- On July 5, 2002, the petitioner, through its president Sy Siong Lato, filed another Motion for Extension, which received a different docket number CA-G.R. SP No. 71504 (the "second case"), also seeking an extension until July 20, 2002, citing disagreements with the previous counsel.
- Both motions for extension were granted by separate divisions of the Court of Appeals.
Filing of the Petition for Review
- Petitioner secured Atty. Richard S. Flores to represent it and filed a Motion for Second Extensio