2 SIENA REALTY CORP. v. GAL-LANG et. al.

FGDLJ
(SRC) SIENA REALTY CORP., v. GAL-LANG. ANITA CO NG in trust for ROCKEFELLER NG, and CA
G.R. No. 145169|May 13, 2004|3rd Division|CARPIO MORALES|Rule 45|What Need Not Be Proved; Rule 129
DOCTRINE: Rule 129 SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government 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 Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
CASE SUMMARY: RTC granted MTD thus SRC’s complaint was dismissed. MR was filed and denied. SRC instead of
appealing the decision within 15 days from receipt of the same, filed a petition for certiorari with CA within 60 days from its
receipt of the order. CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. While the MR is pending, SC issued AM 00-02-03-
SC which reckoned the counting of the 60 day period within which to file a petition for certiorari from the receipt of the order
denying MR. MR was denied. SC ruled that CA should have taken judicial notice of the AM but SC dismissed the petition
since it was a wrong petition and that SRC availed of the wrong remedy in reviewing the RTC decision which should have
been appealed instead of being subjected to a Petition for Certiorari.
FACTS:
 October 20, 1999 RTC Manila Br. 44 dismissed SRC’s petition.
o November 8, 1999 SRC received copy of the Decision.
o November 17, 1999 SRC filed an MR.
o March 23, 2000 MR denied on.
 Allegedly, as per records, SRC received the copy of the March 23 Order on April 8, 2000.
 SRC filed a petition for certiorari before CA on June 7, 2000 or allegedly on the 60th day from their receipt of the
March 23, 2000 Order of the RTC.
 June 20, 2000 CA dismissed petition for being filed out of time as per records, it appears that SRC had only until May 29,
2000 within which to file the Petition for Certiorari since SRC received a copy of the March 23, 2000 Order on April 8,
2000 thus, the CA concluded that the petition was filed nine (9) days late.
o July 10, 2000 SRC filed MR.
 SC issued A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (Reglamentary Period to File Petitions for Certiorari and Petition for Review on Certiorari) a
Resolution dated August 1, 2000 approving the amendment to the following provision of Section 41, Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
 CA denied MR since the sixty (60) day period within which to file a Petition for Certiorari is not counted from the date of
the receipt of the denial of Motion for Reconsideration, but from the date of the receipt of the questioned order or
decision, except that such 60-day period is interrupted upon the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration.

RULING: W/N Rule 45 Petition was proper? NO.

OLD PROVISION AMENDED PROVISION

SECTION 4. Where petition filed. – The petition may be filed not
later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order,
resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it
relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the
same is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of
a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or
these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the
Court of Appeals.
If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or
reconsideration after notice of said judgment, order or
resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the
motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition
within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than
five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial.
No extension of time shall be granted except for the most
compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
SECTION 4. When and where petition filed. – The petition shall be
filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order
or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty
(60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the
said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the
acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer
or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed
in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-
judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for
compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.
2 SIENA REALTY CORP. v. GAL-LANG et. al. FGDLJ
 Since the petition attributes Grave Abuse of Discretion on CA in the issuance of subject resolution, what should have
been filed was one for certiorari under Rule 65.

W/N CA failed to take notice of AM No. 00-02-03-SC w/c took effect on September 1, 2000 and w/c amended
Section 4 of Rule 65?

 SC cited Section 1 Rule 129, thus:

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence,
of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government 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
Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
 Even if SRC did not allege the AM in their MR, the CA hould have taken mandatory judicial notice of this Court’s
resolution in A.M. Matter No. 00-02-03 SC.
o The resolution did not have to specify that it had retroactive effect as it pertains to a procedural matter.
 When the AM took effect, the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed was still pending reconsideration
and as such, covered by the its retroactive application.

W/N the present petition should be granted? NO

 RTC Order granting the MTD of the Complaint was a final, not interlocutory, order and as such, it was subject to appeal,
not a Petition for Certiorari.
 The reglementary period for perfecting an appeal is 15 days from the receipt of the Order denying the MR.
 In the meantime, after the 15 day period of appeal has lapsed, the Order becomes final and executory.
 In this case, at the time SRC filed its Petition for Certiorari within 60 days from its receipt of the Order, the Order had
become final and executory after the 15th day following SRC’s receipt thereof.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED

NOTES: