TodayisSunday,April23,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.163999July9,2014

PHILIPPINELONGDISTANCETELEPHONECOMPANY,Petitioner,
vs.
MILLARDR.OCAMPO,CIPRIANOREYR.HIPOLITO,ERICF.MERJILLAANDJOSER.CARANDANG,
Respondents,

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

A special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy thus, a party who seeks to avail of it must strictly
observetheruleslaiddownbylaw.1

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari2underRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailstheDecision3datedFebruary
18,2004andtheResolution4datedJune11,2004oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.74990.

FactualAntecedents

In February 1996, petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), through its Quality Control
InvestigationDivision(QCID),conductedaninvestigationon1heallegedillegalInternationalSimpleResale(ISR)
activitiesinMakatiCity.5ISRisamethodofroutingandcompletinganinternationallongdistancecallusinglines,
cables,antennas,and/orairwaveorfrequencythatdirectlyconnecttothelocalordomesticexchangefacilitiesof
thecountryofdestinationofthecall.6Likenedtoajumper,7theunauthorizedroutingofinternationallongdistance
calls bypasses petitioners International Gateway Facilities (IGF) with the use of ISR access numbers, making
internationallongdistancecallsappearaslocalcalls,andthereby,deprivingpetitionerofsubstantialrevenues.8

After confirming that some PLDT subscribers wereindeed operating ISR businesses in Makati City, under the
businessnamesINFILNETandEmergencyMonitoringSystem9(EMS),petitionerrequestedtheassistanceofthe
NationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)toapprehendthesaidsubscribers.10Actingonsaidrequest,Atty.OscarL.
Embido (Embido), the supervising agent assigned to the AntiOrganized Crime Divisionof the NBI, conducted
surveillance on the offices of INFILNET and EMS.11 To verify his findings, he went to San Francisco, USA, and
madeinternationalcallstothePhilippinesusingaborrowedsubscriberscard.12Petitionermonitoredthecallsand
discovered that these calls bypassed its IGF.13 Atty. Embido then returned to the Philippines and applied for
searchwarrantswithBranch2314oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila.15

OnSeptember17,1996,theManilaRTCissuedtwosearchwarrants:(a)SearchWarrantNo.96651directedat
theofficeofINFILNETand(b)SearchWarrantNo.96652directedattheofficeofEMS,bothlocatedinMakati
City.16

Onthesameday,NBIagentsconductedsimultaneousraidsduringwhichelectronicgadgets,documents,assorted
office supplies, several pieces of computer equipment, and some personal belongings of the employees of
INFILNETandEMSwereseized.17

On September 19, 1996, an Information for the crime of simple theft was filed before the RTC of Makati City,
Branch 60, docketed as Criminal Case No. 961590, against respondents Millard R. Ocampo, CiprianoRey R.
Hipolito,EricF.Merjilla,andJoseR.Carandang.18Respondentspostedbailthefollowingday.19

On October 4, 1996, respondents filed before the Makati RTC a Motion to Suppress or Exclude or Return
Inadmissible Evidence Unlawfully Obtained,20 assailing the validity of the Search Warrantson the ground thatthe
searchesconductedwerenotinaccordancewiththeestablishedconstitutionalrulesandstatutoryguidelines.21

OnFebruary21,1997,theMakatiRTCdeniedtheMotionrulingthatitistheissuingcourt,inthiscase,theManila
RTC, which has the jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Search Warrants.22 Respondents moved for
reconsideration but the same was unavailing,23 prompting them to file with the CA a Petition for Certiorari,24
docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.47265.25

On July 13, 1998, the CA rendered a Decision26 dismissing the Petition as it found no fault on the part ofthe
Makati RTC in refusing to rule on the Motion to Suppress Evidence under the Principle of NonInterference ofa
coequalcourt.27 However, in order toavoid any conflict, the CA ordered the search warrant cases consolidated
withthecriminalcasefortheft.28Thus:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered:

(1)TheinstantspecialcivilactionforcertiorariisherebyDENIEDforlackofmeritand

(2)The[RTC]ofManila,Branch23,isherebyORDEREDtoforwardtherecordsofthecasetothe[RTC]of
MakatiBranch60,forproperconsolidationthereof.

SOORDERED.29

RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity

On May 24, 2002, respondents applied for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecumagainst certain
personsallegedlyinpossessionofdocumentsrelatingtoPAMTEL,aforeigntelecommunicationscompanywithtie
upstoINFILNETandEMS.30

Findingthedocumentsirrelevantandimmaterialtotheresolutionofthecase,theRTCissuedanOrder31dated
July11,2002,denyingtheapplicationforsubpoenaducestecum.32Respondentssoughtreconsideration33butthe
RTC denied the same in its Order34 dated October 10, 2002. Respondents were notified of the denial of their
MotionforReconsiderationonOctober18,2002.35

OnNovember29,2002,theRTCproceededtoheartheMotiontoSuppress,whichwasrevivedpursuanttothe
CAsDecisiondatedJuly13,1998inCAG.R.SPNo.47265.36Butsincerespondentsfailedtoappearandpresent
evidence to substantiate their Motion, the RTC denied the Motion in open court and issued the corresponding
Order37tothateffect.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

Aggrieved,respondentselevatedthecasetotheCAviaaPetitionforCertiorari,38 docketed as CAG.R. SP No.

74990,assailingtheOrdersdatedJuly11,2002,October10,2002,andNovember29,2002.

OnFebruary18,2004,theCArenderedaDecision39findinggraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheRTCin
issuingtheassailedOrders.40InreversingthedenialoftheMotiontoSuppress,theCAexplainedthatcontraryto
thefindingsoftheRTC,therewasnointentiononthepartofrespondentstodelaytheresolutionoftheMotion.41
In fact, the delays were notsolely attributable to them considering that both parties were trying to arrive at a
compromiseagreement.42Astotheapplicationforsubpoenaducestecum,theCAsaidthattheRTCshouldhave
granteditbecauserespondentsneededthedocumentstosupporttheirMotiontoSuppress.43Thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is given due course. The assailed Orders dated
November 29, 2002 and July 11, 2002 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Public respondent Presiding
Judgeisherebyorderedtogrant[respondents]applicationforsubpoenaducestecumandtocontinuewiththe
hearing on [respondents] Motion to Suppress and Exclude Inadmissible Evidence Seized by the reception of
evidencefrombothpartiesinsupportoforinoppositiontosaidmotion.

SOORDERED.44

Petitionermovedforreconsideration45buttheCAdeniedthesameinitsResolution46datedJune11,2004.

Issues

Hence,petitionerfiledtheinstantPetitionforReviewonCertiorariraisingthefollowingerrors:

A. THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED INREVERSING THE FIRST AND SECOND RTC ORDERS, WHICH
DENIEDRESPONDENTSAPPLICATIONFORSUBPOENACONSIDERINGTHAT:

1. SAID ORDERS HAVE LONG BEEN FINAL AND EXECUTORY AND THE PERIOD FOR
FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ASSAILING THESE ORDERS HAS ALREADY
LAPSED.THUS,THE[CA]SHOULDNOTHAVEDISTURBEDTHEFIRSTANDSECONDRTC
ORDERS.
 2. THE RTCMAKATI PROPERLY DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA AS THERE
WASNOPROPERGROUNDFORGRANTINGTHESAME.

B. THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED INREVERSING THE THIRD RTC ORDER, WHICH DENIED THE
MOTIONTOSUPPRESS,CONSIDERINGTHAT:

1. RESPONDENTS FAILED TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE THIRD

RTC ORDER WITHOUT CITING ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON BEFORE FILING A PETITION
FORCERTIORARIQUESTIONINGSAIDORDER.

2. DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO THEM BY, AND REPEATED

WARNINGS FROM, THE RTCMAKATI, RESPONDENTS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE
MOTIONTOSUPPRESS.

3. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS ARE THE SAME ISSUES IN A
MOTIONTOQUASHWHICHHAVEALREADYBEENRULEDUPONBYTHERTCMANILA,A
COURTOFCOORDINATEJURISDICTION.

4. IN ANY CASE, THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS HAS NO MERIT AND WAS PROPERLY
DENIEDBYTHERTCMAKATI.47

Stripped of the nonessentials, the core issue is whether the CA erred in giving due course to the Petition for
Certiorari,andinsubsequentlygrantingthesamedespiteevidentprocedurallapses.

PetitionersArguments

PetitionerassailstheproprietyoftheCAsreversaloftheOrdersoftheRTC,positingthatinfilingthePetitionfor
Certiorari,respondentsfailedtoobserveproceduralrules.First,nomotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderdated
November 29, 2002, denying respondents Motion to Suppress, was filed prior to the filing of the Petition for
Certiorari.48Second,morethan60dayshadlapsedfromthetimerespondentswerenotifiedofthedenialoftheir
MotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderdatedJuly11,2002,whichdeniedtheirapplicationforsubpoenaduces
tecum.49Third,respondentsfailedtoindicatethedatetheyreceivedtheOrdersdatedJuly11,2002andOctober
10,2002.50Giventheforegoingproceduralinfirmities,petitionercontendstheCAshouldnothaveentertainedthe
PetitionforCertiorarimuchmoregrantedaffirmativerelief.

RespondentsArguments

Respondents, on the other hand, insist that their failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated
November29,2002isnotfatalastheruleissubjecttoexceptions.51Inthiscase,respondentsnolongerfileda
motionforreconsiderationastheyalreadymovedinopencourtforareconsiderationofthedenialoftheirMotion
to Suppress butthe RTC flatly denied the same.52 As to the alleged noncompliance with the 60day period,
respondentsbrushasidetheissuearguingthattechnicalrulescannotpreventtheCAfromgivingduecoursetoa
PetitionforCertiorari,whichitconsiderstobemeritorious.53

OurRuling

ThePetitionhasmerit.

AssailedinthePetitionforCertiorarifiledbeforetheCAarethreeOrders,towit:

1)TheOrderdatedJuly11,2002,denyingrespondentsapplicationforsubpoenaducestecum

2)TheOrderdatedOctober10,2002,denyingrespondentsMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderdated
July11,2002and

3)TheOrderdatedNovember29,2002,denyingrespondentsMotiontoSuppress.

WeshallfirstdiscusstheOrdersdatedJuly11,2002andOctober10,2002.

The Petition for Certiorari should have been filed within 60 days from notice of the denial of the Motion for
ReconsiderationoftheassailedOrder.

Section4,54 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a special civil action for certiorari should be instituted
within60daysfromnoticeofthejudgment,order,orresolution,orfromthenoticeofthedenialofthemotionfor
reconsiderationofthejudgment,order,orresolutionbeingassailed.The60dayperiod,however,isinextendible
toavoidanyunreasonabledelay,whichwouldviolatetheconstitutionalrightsofpartiestoaspeedydispositionof
their cases.55 Thus, strict compliance of this rule is mandatory and imperative.56 But like all rules, the 60day
limitation may be relaxed "for the most persuasive of reasons," which must be sufficiently shown by the party
invokingliberality.57

Inthiscase,respondentswerenotifiedofthedenialoftheirMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderdatedJuly
11,2002,denyingtheirapplicationforsubpoenaducestecum,onOctober18,2002.58Accordingly,theyhaduntil
December 17, 2002 within which to file a Petition for Certiorariwith the CA. Records, however, show that it was
only on January 20, 2003 that respondents filed their Petition for Certiorarito assail the Orders dated July 11,
2002andOctober10,2002.59 Instead of admitting that more than 60 days had lapsed, respondents kept silent
about it in their Petition for Certiorari. When petitioner brought up the issue,respondents reply60 was
unresponsive. Infact, they did not even confirm or deny the alleged lapse of the 60day period. Siding with
respondent,theCAoptednottodiscusstheissueandresolvedtoreversetheOrderdatedJuly11,2002onthe
ground that the granting of the subpoena duces tecum was necessary in order for respondents to substantiate
theirMotiontoSuppress.

TheCAsreasoning,however,eveniftrue,doesnotexcuserespondentsfromcomplyingwiththe60dayperiod
rule, especially since they have not offered any plausible justification for their noncompliance. In fact, their
adamantrefusaltoadmittheobvioustruthaswellastheirdeliberateattempttohidethisprocedurallapsecannot
be ignored. Leniency is given only to those deserving of it. In this case, respondents are not entitled to any
becausetheyintentionallyomittedtoindicateintheirPetitionforCertiorarithedatetheywerenotifiedoftheOrder
datedOctober10,2002inordertomisleadtheCA.Besides,relaxingtherulewouldnotonlybeunfairandunjust
butwouldalsobeprejudicialtopetitioner,whohadeveryrighttobelievethattheOrdersdatedJuly11,2002and
October10,2002hadattainedfinalityandmaynolongerbealtered,modified,orreversed.Aswehavesaid,the
60daylimitationmayberelaxedonlyforthemostpersuasivereasonsandonlyinmeritoriouscases,whichmust
besufficientlyshownbythepartyinvokingliberality.Suchisnotthesituationinthiscase. 1 w p h i1

Inviewoftheforegoing,wefindthattheCAerredingivingduecoursetothePetitionandinreversingtheOrders
datedJuly11,2002andOctober10,2002,astheymaynolongerbedisturbed,afterhavingattainedfinality.

Intheabsenceofamotionforreconsideration,thePetitionforCertiorarishouldhavebeendismissed.

Jurisprudenceconsistentlyholdsthatthefilingofamotionforreconsiderationisaprerequisitetotheinstitutionof
apetitionforcertiorari.61Althoughthisruleissubjecttocertainexceptions,62noneofwhichispresentinthiscase.

Respondents admit that they failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated November 29, 2002
prior to filing the Petition for Certiorari. As an excuse, they alleged that their counselverbally moved for a
reconsideration of the denial of their Motion to Suppress, which the RTC flatly denied in open court. Such
allegation, however, as aptly pointed out by petitioner,63 is not supported by the evidence as the Order dated
November29,2002madenomentionofsuchfact.64Itisalsounlikelyforrespondentscounseltohavemovedfor
areconsiderationofthesaidOrderconsideringthat,asstatedintheOrder,heappearedonlyafterthehearings
wereover.65Besides,thelowercourtshouldfirstbeinformedofitssupposederrorandbeallowedtocorrector
rectifythesamethroughareexaminationofthelegalandfactualaspectsofthecase,whichcouldonlybedone
byfilingamotionforreconsiderationoftheassailedorder.66Thisrespondentsfailedtodo.Thus,intheabsenceof
amotionforreconsideration,theCAerredingivingduecoursetothePetitionandinreversingtheOrderdated
November29,2002.

In closing, we must emphasize thatwhile litigation isnot a game of technicalities, this does not mean that
procedural rules may be ignored at will or that their nonobservance may be dismissed simply because it may
prejudiceapartyssubstantialrights.67Mereinvocationsofsubstantialjusticeandliberalityarenotenoughforthe
courttosuspendproceduralrules.68Again,exceptonlyforthemostcompellingorpersuasivereasons,procedural
rulesmustbefollowedtofacilitatetheorderlyadministrationofjustice.69

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheDecisiondatedFebruary18,2004andtheResolutiondated
June11,2004oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.74990areherebySETASIDE.TheOrdersdatedJuly
11,2002,October10,2002andNovember29,2002oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,Branch60,inCriminal
CaseNo.961590,areherebyREINSTATED.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
 ARTUROD.BRION JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Batuganv.JudgeBalindong,600Phil.518,527(2009).
2
Rollo,pp.2066.
3
CA rollo, pp. 429436 penned by Associate Justice Sergio L. Pestano and concurred in by Associate
JusticesMarinaL.BuzonandAuroraS.Lagman.
4
Id.at475476pennedbyAssociateJusticeMarinaL.BuzonandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesEloy
R.Bello,Jr.andAuroraS.Lagman.
5
Id.at429430.
6
Rollo,p.27.
7
Id.
8
CArollo,p.430.
9
ReferredtoasEmergencyMonitoringServicesinpetitionerspleadings.
10
CArollo,p.430.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Rollo,p.28.
14
ThenpresidedbyExecutiveJudgeWilliamM.BayhonCArollo,p.430.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Rollo,pp.103119.
21
CArollo,p.430.
22
Id.at431androllo,pp.120121OrderdatedFebruary21,1997pennedbyJudgePedroN.Laggui.
23
Id.at431andid.at126132OrderdatedDecember2,1997pennedbyJudgePedroN.Laggui.
24
Rollo,pp.133155.
25
CArollo,p.431.
26
Rollo, pp. 156166 penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona and concurred in by Associate
JusticesJorgeS.ImperialandDemetrioG.Demetria.
27
Id.at164.
28
Id.at165.
29
Id.
30
CArollo,p.431.
31
Rollo,pp.187188pennedbyJudgeMarissaMacaraigGuillen.
32
CArollo,p.431.
33
Rollo,pp.190198.
34
Id.at213pennedbyJudgeMarissaMacaraigGuillen.
35
SeeOrderdatedOctober18,2002pennedbyJudgeMarissaMacaraigGuillen,id.at215216.
36
CArollo,p.431.
37
Rollo,pp.217218pennedbyJudgeMarissaMacaraigGuillen.
38
CArollo,pp.224.
39
Id.at429436.
40
Id.at435.
41
Id.at433434.
42
Id.
43
Id.at434435.
44
Id.at435.
45
Rollo,pp.373390.
46
CArollo,pp.475476.
47
Rollo,pp.3334.
48
Id.at615617.
49
Id.at605606.
50
Id.at606608.
51
Id.at578579.
52
Id.
53
Id.at577578.
54
Section4.Whenandwheretofilethepetition.Thepetitionshallbefilednotlaterthansixty(60)days
fromnoticeofthejudgment,orderorresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialistimely
 filed,whethersuchmotionisrequiredornot,thepetitionshallbefilednotlaterthansixty(60)dayscounted
fromthenoticeofthedenialofthemotion.

xxxx
55
Mallariv.GovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem,G.R.No.157659,611SCRA32,43,January25,2010.
56
PrudentialGuaranteeandAssurance,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,480Phil.134,140(2004).
57
Id.
58
SeeOrderdatedOctober18,2002,rollo,pp.215216.
59
CArollo,p.2.
60
Id.at326335.
61
NovateknikaLandCorporationv.PhilippineNationalBank,G.R.No.194104,March13,2013,693SCRA
423,432.
62
(a)wheretheorderisapatentnullity,aswherethecourtaquohasnojurisdiction

(b)wherethequestionsraisedinthecertiorariproceedinghavebeendulyraisedandpassedupon
bythelowercourt,orarethesameasthoseraisedandpasseduponinthelowercourt

(c)wherethereisanurgentnecessityfortheresolutionofthequestionandanyfurtherdelaywould
prejudice the interests of the government or the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable

(d)where,underthecircumstances,amotionforreconsiderationwouldbeuseless

(e)wherepetitionerwasdeprivedofdueprocessandthereisextremeurgencyforrelief

(f)where,inacriminalcase,relieffromanorderofarrestisurgentandthegrantingofsuchreliefby
thetrialcourtisimprobable

(g)wheretheproceedingsinthelowercourtareanullityforlackofdueprocess

(h)wheretheproceedingswasexparteorinwhichthepetitionerhadnoopportunitytoobjectand
(i)wheretheissueraisedisonepurelyoflaworwherepublicinterestisinvolved.(Id.)
63
Rollo,pp.615617.
64
Id.at217218.
65
Id.at218.
66
NovateknikaLandCorporationv.PhilippineNationalBank,supranote61at433.
67
SeaPowerShippingEnterprises,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,412Phil.603,611(2001).
68
Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 412, 414 and 417 (2000) and Pinakamasarap Corporation v.
NationalLaborRelationsCommission,534Phil.222,232(2006).
69
Barcenasv.Sps.AnastacioTomas,494Phil.565,575(2005).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation