Siena Realty Corp v Gal-lang

G.R. No. 145169. May 13, 2004

Carpio-Morales, .!
"a#ts!
Siena Realty filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 a Decision by the CA
which denied its motion for reconsideration on the case decided by the trial court, the
reason for the denial is that the same was filed out of time.
Siena received a Copy of the Order of Denial dated Oct !, "### on $ov %, "###,
and they filed an &R to the Oct !, "### Decision on $ov "', "###( the &R was denied
in an Order dated &ar ), !!!, which they received on Apr %, !!!. Siena filed with CA
a petition for certiorari on *une ', !!!, or on the +!
th
day, which was denied, the CA
rulin, that it was # days late, the same should have been filed on &ay #, !!!.
Siena filed an &R.
-n the meantime, A& !!.!.!).SC was issued by SC, amendin, Sec 4 of Rule +5,
effective Au, ", !!!, statin, that instead that /the petition for certiorari should be filed
within +! days from the notice of the 0ud,ment, order, or resolution( if there is any &R,
the petitioner may file the certiorari within the remainin, time, which shall not be less
than 5 days in any event1 into /the +! days period shall be counted from the date of
notice of denial of the &R.1
$ss%es!
2"3 4O$ CA should have ta5en 0udicial notice of A& !!.!.!).SC6
23 4O$ the petition should be ,ranted6
&el'!
2"3 7es. Section ", Rule "# of the Rules on 8vidence reads9
S8C:-O$ ". *udicial notice, when mandatory. ; A court shall ta5e 0udicial
notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the e<istence and territorial e<tent of states, their
political history, forms of ,overnment and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty
and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the
=hilippines, the official acts of the le,islative, e<ecutive and 0udicial departments of the
=hilippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the ,eo,raphical divisions. 28mphasis
and underscorin, supplied3
8ven if petitioner did not raise or alle,e the amendment in their motion for
reconsideration before it, the Court of Appeals should have ta5en mandatory 0udicial
notice of this Court>s resolution in A.&. &atter $o. !!.!.!) SC. :he resolution did not
have to specify that it had retroactive effect as it pertains to a procedural matter. Contrary
to private respondent>s alle,ation that the matter was no lon,er pendin, and
undetermined, the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed was still
pendin, reconsideration when the amendment too5 effect on September ", !!!, hence,
covered by the its retroactive application.
23 $o. :he amendatory rule in their favor notwithstandin,, petitioners> petition
fails as stated early on. :he order of the trial court ,rantin, private respondent>s &otion
to Dismiss the complaint was a final, not interlocutory, order and as such, it was sub0ect
to appeal,5 not a petition for certiorari. At the time petitioners filed before the appellate
court their petition for certiorari on the +!th day followin, their receipt of the October !,
"### Order of the trial court denyin, their &otion for Reconsideration of its dismissal
order, the said October !, "### Order had become final and e<ecutory after the "5th day
followin, petitioners> receipt thereof.