11.

MAGAT v TANTRADE CORPORATION RULING: Rule 42 takes a particularly liberal stance with regard to the period for filing petitions. It enables
G.R. No. 205483 extensions, while other modes of appeal do not. It allows two extensions of 15 days each.
DATE: August 23, 2017 An initial extension may be given, provided that it is sought through a proper motion, docket, and lawful
By: Miguel Luis Gayares fees are paid, and a deposit is made before the expiration of the reglementary period. On the other
Topic: Duty to Render Judgment hand, after the first extension, Rule 42 permits a second extension of another 15 days for the most
Petitioner: Mario Magat, Sr., Mario S. Magat, Jr., Mario S. Magat, III, Ma. Margarita M. Estavilla, Ma. compelling reasons.
Marjorie S. Magat, all substitute parties and heirs of the deceased party, Juliana S. Magat
Respondent: Tantrade Corporation and Pablo S. Borja, Jr. The grants of the two extensions are under the discretion of the CA. Mere compliance with the
Ponente: Leonen, J. requirements does not guarantee its approval.

DOCTRINE: Justice is better served by extending consideration to the parties and enabling an exhaustive The general rule remains to be the filing of a verified petition within 15 days from notice of the decision
resolution of their claims. sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration. Extensions
are proper only under exceptional circumstances. Remember that the right to appeal is merely vested by
FACTS: statue. It devolves upon the party seeking an extension to file an appeal to establish the merits of his or
 Tantrade filed a Complaint for Collection of a Sum of Money with Damages praying that the her plea.
defendant, Juliana Magat, be ordered to pay P266,481.50 for unpaid purchases of
construction materials. In this case, the Court finds the Petitioners to have effectively pleaded grounds that warrant the
extensions. They acted well within the periods sanctioned by Rule 42. It must be remembered that Rule
 Juliana, however, denied making any such purchases. She claimed that it was her contractor,
42 allows 15 days to file petitions for review. Within the same period, appellants are expressly permitted
respondent Borja, who purchased such under their Owner-Contractor Agreement. Thus, Borja
by the rule to file motions for extension. Therefore, the Petitioners should not be faulted for maximizing
was impleaded as a third-party defendant.
the period that Rule 42 allows since they are merely exercising a legitimate option.
 MTC: Found Juliana liable to pay Tantrade P305,833.10. It ruled that the purchase orders
signed by Juliana indicated that she bound herself to pay Tantrade. However, it added that
Petitioners cannot be faulted for the late receipt of the ponente’s office on May 24 since party-litigants
under the aforesaid agreement, Borja bound himself to furnish all labor, materials, tools, and
have no control over the internal processes of the courts. They only need to comply with what the rules
equipment for the construction of Juliana’s building. Thus, it ordered Borja to reimburse
require. Petitioners, in this case, have done their party by filing their motions timely. The CA has not even
Juliana the amount to be paid to Tantrade.
attributed any other technical defect besides its assertion of Petitioners’ “procrastination”.
 Juliana appealed to the RTC but passed away; hence, her heirs (Petitioners) substituted her.
 RTC: Affirmed in toto the MTC and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
When they sought a second extension, Petitioners cannot be considered to abuse court processes.
Petitioners’ counsel only received a copy of the RTC’s April 18, 2011 order on May 9, 2011.
 May 23, 2011: One day before the lapse of the 15-day period to file a Petition for Review
Ultimately, the Court considers it to be in the better interest of justice had the CA been more perceptive
under Rule 42, Petitioners filed their Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition for
of the Petitioners’ plight and granted them the extension sought, in order that they could have fully
Review under the said rule. They asked for an additional 15 days from May 24, citing financial
litigated the case. The Petitioners were afflicted with the tragedy of the death of their mother and were
constraint due to the expenses from the hospitalization and death of their mother Juliana.
financially constrained. These were compelling reasons warranting a solicitous stance towards them.
However, Petitioners still managed to pay the docket fees and deposits as required under
Rule 42. This was done alongside the filing of the First Motion for Extension.
Justice is better served by extending consideration to the parties and enabling an exhaustive resolution
 CA: On May 31, the CA denied the First Motion for Extension, arguing that the Petitioners
of their claims. This is especially so as Petitioners’ utmost good faith was demonstrated; they having seen
procrastinated by filing a day before the end of the reglementary period and that the Court
to it that, even as they were imploring the CA’s understanding, each of the technical requirements of
could not be expected to have acted on such very limited time.
Rule 42 was satisfied.
 June 6, 2011: Two days before the expiration of the first 15-day extension, Petitioners filed a
Second Urgent Motion for Extension of Time. Note that they haven’t received the aforesaid WHEREFORE, the Petition is Granted.
CA decision.
 June 22, 2011: A day before the end of the second 15-day extension, they filed with the CA
their Petition for Review under Rule 42.
 June 29, 2011: Petitioners received a copy of the CA’s May 31 decision.
 July 11, 2011: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, citing the difficulties in
complying with the court procedure such as (1) the distance between Tagbilaran City and
Cebu City; (2) length of time to prepare the main petition; and (3) lack of money.
 CA: On January 15, 2013, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in denying the extensions sought by the Petitioners and in dismissing their
appeal?

HELD: YES. Sec. 1 of Rule 42 allows motions for extension.