G.R. No. 184915 - Pates vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184915)

Background and Chronology of Events

The COMELEC First Division issued a resolution on February 1, 2008, which the petitioner received on February 4, 2008. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on February 8, 2008, within the 30-day period provided for filing such a motion. The COMELEC en banc denied this motion on September 18, 2008, a resolution received by the petitioner on September 22, 2008. Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC en banc resolution had to be filed within 30 days from notice of the resolution. Taking into account the four days used in filing the motion for reconsideration, the petitioner had 26 days left, making October 18, 2008 (a Saturday), effectively the last day to file. The filing period was extended to October 20, 2008, the next business day. However, the petitioner filed his petition on October 22, 2008, two days late, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Petitioner's Argument: Application of the Fresh Period Rule

The petitioner contended that his petition was timely filed under the "fresh period" rule, which counts the filing period from the receipt of the ruling on the motion for reconsideration, without deducting the days spent preparing the motion. He argued that this rule was historically applied to petitions for certiorari and was reinstated by the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC in 2000, reversing the earlier adoption of the "remainder" rule under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Circular No. 39-98. He cited several Supreme Court cases—Narzoles v. NLRC, Neypes v. Court of Appeals, Spouses de los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat, Active Realty and Development Corporation v. Fernandez, and Romero v. Court of Appeals—that apply the fresh period rule and treat the denial of a motion for reconsideration as the final order for reckoning the period for filing an appeal.

Respondents' Position

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) declined to file a separate comment, while respondent Emelita B. Almirante supported the dismissal, pointing out that Rule 64 (not Rule 65) governs the filing of petitions for certiorari involving COMELEC decisions and requires a 30-day filing period. She emphasized that the fresh period rule under Rule 65 is inapplicable and that the remainder rule under Rule 64 should be followed, making the petition late and subject to dismissal.

Legal Basis: Rule 64 vs. Rule 65 and Constitutional Provisions

The Court based its decision on Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that decisions of constitutional commissions such as COMELEC be reviewed by certiorari within 30 days from receipt of notice. Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is specifically designed to govern petitions for certiorari involving COMELEC and Commission on Audit decisions, prescribing a 30-day period with the deduction of days used for motions for reconsideration. This differs from Rule 65, which governs other certiorari petitions and allows a 60-day fresh period starting from the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The Court held that the two rules are substantively different, and the fresh period rule applicable to Rule 65 petitions cannot be judicially imported to Rule 64 cases.

Strict Adherence to Procedural Rules and Precedents

The Court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules to ensure the orderly and prompt disposition of cases, particularly election-related cases governed by the Constitution’s emphasis on expeditious resolution (Section 3, Article IX-C). The ruling cited prior decisions, such as Domingo v. COMELEC, Fortich v. Corona, and others, emphasizing that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential mechanisms to prevent delays and to uphold the integrity of judicial processes. The Court clarified that exceptions to the strict application of procedural rules require a showing of exceptional circumstances, which the petitioner failed to present.

Policy Considerations on Uniformity and Convenience

While recognizing the petitioner's call for uniformity and convenience through the adoption of the fresh period rule, the Court rejected this as insufficient justification to deviate from the constitutionally mandated and legislatively enacted filing period under Rule 64. The importance of prompt

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184915)

Case Background and Procedural History

Petitioner Nilo T. Pates filed a petition for certiorari against decisions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and respondent Emelita B. Almirante.
On February 1, 2008, the COMELEC First Division issued the subject resolution which was the basis of the petition.
Petitioner’s counsel received a copy of this resolution on February 4, 2008.
On February 8, 2008, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) within four days of receipt.
The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration on September 18, 2008.
Petitioner received notice of this denial on September 22, 2008.
The Rules of Court, specifically Section 3, Rule 64, provide for a 30-day period from notice of the final order or resolution to file a petition for certiorari.
The last day for filing, accounting for weekends and deduction of days spent for MR preparation, was October 20, 2008.
Petitioner filed the petition on October 22, 2008, two days late.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in its Resolution dated November 11, 2008 based on untimely filing.

Issues Raised in the Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration and reiterated a request for a temporary restraining order.
Petitioner argued for the application of the “fresh period rule,” which provides a fresh, undeducted period for filing after denial of a motion for reconsideration.
He claimed this fresh period rule was historically the prevailing rule before 1997 and was reinstated after confusion caused by Circular No. 39-98 by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC in 2000.
Petitioner cited several cases (Narzoles, Neypes, Spouses de los Santos, Active Realty, Romero) where the Supreme Court applied the fresh period rule in different contexts.
Petitioner contends that the date of receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration should trigger the full period for filing a petition.
He requested the Court to reverse the dismissal and accept the petition as timely filed.

Respondents’ Position and Comments on the Motion

The Office of the Solicitor General requested to be excused from filing a separate comment pursuant to Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and related jurisprudence.
Respondent Emelita B. Almirante supported the dismissal and affirmed that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period.
Respondent argued that Rule 64 governs the filing period for petitions for certiorari from COMELEC decisions, not Rule 65.
She highlighted the distinction between Rule 64 and Rule 65, especially the filing period — 30 days under Rule 64 versus 60 days under Rule 65.
Respondent maintained that petitioner’s reliance on Rule 65’s provisions and the fresh period rule was misplaced.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Legal Basis and Analysis (A. As a Matter of Law)

The Court emphasized Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution prescribes a 30-day limit for filing a petition for certiorari against COMELEC rulings.
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court specifically governs petitions for certiorari from COMELEC and Commission on Audit decisions.
Rule 64 purposely refers to Rule 65 only “except as hereinafter provided,” recognizing a separate and shorter period for COMELEC cases.
The legal difference between Rules 64 and 65