Title
Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126405
Decision Date
Feb 25, 1999
Petitioner challenged CA's denial of motions to strike OSG's delayed comment and reconsideration; SC upheld CA, citing timely filing, no abuse of discretion, and interest of justice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235016)

Antecedent Facts

On December 15, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in CA GR No. 15386, which involved the People of the Philippines versus Reynaldo Cartalla y Abasolo. Following this, Dra. Nepomuceno filed a motion for reconsideration on January 12, 1996. The Court of Appeals then mandated the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a comment within ten days, which prompted the OSG to submit its comment over four months later on June 4, 1996. Subsequently, Dra. Nepomuceno filed a "Motion To Strike Off The Record" concerning the OSG's late comment, claiming it was submitted beyond the specified timeframe.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

On September 20, 1996, the Court of Appeals rejected both the motion to strike and the motion for reconsideration. The court reasoned that the Solicitor General's comment was timely filed due to a series of extensions granted for its submission, culminating in a final allowance until June 8, 1996. Furthermore, the court found the grounds for reconsideration insufficient, reiterating that they had already been addressed in the earlier decision and that no compelling new reason justifying reconsideration had been presented.

Petitioner’s Claims and Arguments

Dra. Nepomuceno contested the Court of Appeals' resolution by subsequently filing a petition for relief, asserting that the OSG’s comment should have been disregarded due to its tardiness. She argued that the delay hindered her right to a fair resolution and violated procedural rules.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court found the petition devoid of merit, stating that the OSG's comment was appropriately filed within the granted extensions. The court highlighted the necessity of granting sufficient time for the Solicitor General to respond in the interest of justice. Citing precedents, the court established that grave abuse of discretion transpi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.