Fluor Daniel, Inc. vs Fil- Estate Properties, Inc.
GR No. 212895, Nov. 27, 2019
REYES, A., JR., J.
Case Doctrine:
Under the rule of Court currently in forced, a petition for certiorari must be filed not later than
60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution complained of. If a motion for
Reconsideration or new trail was timely filed, the petition must be filed not later than 60 days
from notice of the denial of the motion. Under the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 00-2-03-
SC in 2000, motions for extension of time to file petitions for certiorari were allowed for
compelling reasons only.
FACTS:
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) ordered Fil-Estate Properties Inc. (FEPI)
to pay Fluor Daniel, Inc. – Phils. (FDIP) the amount of Php 13,579,599.57 plus interest.
Decision was affirmed by the CA and the SC. FDIP would learn that FEPI own shares of stock in
another corporation, Fil-Estate Industrial Park, Inc (FEIP). This was relayed to the sheriff who
would then garnish them. The Shares were actioned and awarded to FDIP as highest bidder.
However, FDIP would later find out that FEIP had already ceased operation, rendering the stocks
worthless. FDIP refused to pay the sheriff’s commission, the certificate of sale was not executed.
FDIP filed with CIAC for Issuance of Alies Writ of Execution but was denied. They then went to
the CA to petition for additional time to file a petition for certiorari. CA denied it, finding no
exceptional or meritorious circumstances to grant the extension. Motion for reconsideration was
denied.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the CA erred in denying the motion for additional time to file a certiorari.
HELD:
YES.
Under the rule of Court currently in forced, a petition for certiorari must be filed not later than 60
days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution complained of. If a motion for
Reconsideration or new trail was timely filed, the petition must be filed not later than 60 days
from notice of the denial of the motion. Under the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 00-2-03-
SC in 2000, motions for extension of time to file petitions for certiorari were allowed for
compelling reasons only.
The court enumerated the following instances when the period to file a petition a certiorari may
be extended:
(1) Most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good
faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the
time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the
merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous or dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence without
appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each
case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the
issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the
attendant circumstances.
The pleading, evidence, and arguments on record make a meritorious case for granting FDIP’s
motion for additional time to file its petition for certiorari.
The forgoing questions involve mixed issues of facts and law which are best litigated by the CA.
The facts remains that up to now, FDIP has not collected a single centavo of the 13-million peso
award that was rendered in its favor almost 20 years ago. On the other hand, FEPI has been
successfully evading its legal obligation for almost 20 years by the simple expedient of a denial
of a motion for additional time to file a petition for certiorari. There is no showing that FEPI will
be prejudiced or unjustly deprived of any benefit if FDIP’s motion is granted. To settle the
matter once and for all, substantial justice dictates that the issues raised by the parties before this
court be litigated in proper forum - the CA.
