Legal periods ALFREDO JACA MONTAJES MONTAJES vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES FACTS: In an Information dated June 5, 2003, petitioner was charged with the crime of Direct Assault • before the Municipal Trial ourt of !uena"ista, Agusan del d el #orte, against a Jose !$ %ellon, an elected &unong !aranga'$ December 2(, 2005, the MT issued its Judgment finding petitioner guilt' of the crime of • direct assault ma)ing him sub*ect to + months and da' to + 'ears ( months and 0 da's imprisonment as well as a fine of &000$ &etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the %T denied in an -rder dated -rder dated Ma' +, • 200.$ &etitioner filed with the A a petition /should be motion for e1tension of time to file petition • for re"iew under %ule +2 of the %ules of ourt pra'ing for an e1tended period of 5 da's from Ma' 2, 200., or until June 5, 200., within which to file his petition$ &etitioner subseuentl' filed his petition for re"iew on June 5, 200.$ -n eptember 2, 200., the A issued its assailed assailed %esolution dismissing the petition outright • for being filed out of time$ In so ruling, the A said4 As borne b' the records, the petitioner recei"ed the cop' of the resolution o den'ing his motion for reconsideration on Ma' +, 200., Thus, the 5da' reglementar' reglementar' period within which to file a petition petition for re"iew e1pired on Ma' 2, 200. /Monda' considering that the last da' fell on a aturda', Ma' (, 200.$ &etitioner should ha"e rec)oned the 5da' e1tension from Ma' (, 200. and o not from Ma' 2, 200.$ It is well settled that when the da' of the period falls on a aturda', unda', or a legal holida', and a part' is granted an e1tension of time, the e1tension should be counted from the last da' which is a aturda', unda' or legal holida'$ &etitioner6s motion for reconsideration was denied in a %esolution dated Ma' (, 2007$ •
I894 :hether the A erred in den'ing due course to his petition for re"iew for being filed out • of time &etitioner;s ide4 • o
%A#T9D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ection , %ule 22 of the %ules of ourt relied upon b ' petitioner pro"ides4 ection $ How to compute time$ ? If the last da' of the period, as thus computed, falls on a aturda', a unda', or a legal holida' in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the ne1t wor)ing da'$ In A$M$ #o$ 002+ dated @ebruar' 2(, 2000 /%e4 omputation of Time :hen the ast Da' @alls on a aturda', unda' or a egal ranted :hereas, the aforecited pro"ision Bection , %ule 22 of the %ules of ourtC o applies in the matter of filing of pleadings in courts when the due date falls on a aturda', unda' or legal holida', in which case, the filing of the said pleading on the ne1t wor)ing da' is deemed on time :hereas? when a motion for e1tension of time is filed, the period of e1tension is o to be rec)oned from the ne1t wor)ing da' and not from the original e1piration of the period$ o #-: T<9%9@-%9, the ourt %esol"es, for the guidance of the !ench and the !ar, to declare that ection , %ule 22 spea)s only o !"#e las" day o "#e period! so "#a" $#en a par"y see%s an e&"ension and "#e sa'e is gran"ed( "#e d)e da"e *eases "o +e "#e las" day and #en*e( "#e provision no longer applies $ An' e1tension of time to file the reuired pleading should therefore be counted from the e1piration of the period regardless of the fact that said due date is a aturda', unda' or legal holida'$ In a similar issue found in De la Cruz v. Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc. The pro"ision Bection , %ule 22 of the %ules of ourtC states that in case a o motion for e1tension is granted, the due date for the e1tended period shall be counted from the original due date, not from the ne1t wor)ing da' on which the motion for e1tension was filed$ !ased on ection , %ule 22 of the %ules of ourt, petitioner6s filing of his motion for e1tension of time to file a petition for re"iew on Ma' 2, 200., the ne1t wor)ing da' which followed the last da' for filing which fell on a aturda', was on time$
•
•
:e do not find an'thing on record that shows petitioner6s deliberate intent to dela' the final disposition of the case as he had filed the petition for re"iew within the e1tended period sought, although erroneousl' computed :e ha"e ruled that being a few da's late in the filing of the petition for re"iew does not automaticall' warrant the dismissal thereof$
A9 D-T%I#94 ourts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not reall' impair the proper administration of *ustice$ After all, the higher ob*ecti"e of procedural rule is to insure that the substanti"e rights of the parties are protected$ 9"er' part'litigant must be afforded ample opportunit' for the proper and *ust determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities
