Certiorari Filing Deadlines: The 60-Day Rule and Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Supreme Court's ruling in Concejero v. Court of Appeals and Philippine National Bank (G.R. No. 223262, September 11, 2017) clarifies a critical point of procedure for employees and employers alike: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must be given its full 60-day filing period, and a court that dismisses a case before that period expires commits grave abuse of discretion.

The case arose from the dismissal of Dennis M. Concejero, an Assistant Vice-President of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), who was found guilty of willful breach of trust for concealing irregular lending activities at a branch. The Labor Arbiter upheld his dismissal, and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed. When the NLRC denied his motion for reconsideration, Concejero received the resolution on September 23, 2014.

Believing he had only 15 days to appeal, Concejero's counsel filed a motion for extension on October 8, 2014, asking for additional time until October 23, 2014. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the case on November 3, 2014—before the 60-day period had even run—because no petition had been filed by the requested deadline.

The 60-day rule under Section 4, Rule 65

The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. When a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the 60-day period is counted from notice of the denial of that motion.

In this case, Concejero received the NLRC's denial on September 23, 2014. His 60-day period therefore ran until November 22, 2014. Because that date fell on a Saturday, the rules on computation of time under Section 1, Rule 22 extended the deadline to the next working day—Monday, November 24, 2014. Concejero filed his petition for certiorari on that exact date.

The Court of Appeals' error

The Court of Appeals dismissed the case on November 3, 2014, merely because Concejero had not filed his petition by October 23, 2014—the deadline he himself had requested in his motion for extension. The Supreme Court found this to be a grave error.

The appellate court should have recognized that Concejero was entitled to the full 60-day period. Even if he sought an extension of only 15 days, the case was not yet dismissible when the court acted. The petition was timely filed on November 24, 2014, and the Court of Appeals could have recalled its earlier dismissal resolution. Instead, it merely "noted" Concejero's subsequent manifestation and allowed the dismissal to become final.

Grave abuse of discretion defined

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. By dismissing the case before the 60-day period lapsed, the appellate court effectively deprived Concejero of his right to file a petition for certiorari within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court. The Court annulled the assailed resolutions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Practical takeaways

• Know the 60-day period. Under Section 4, Rule 65, a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days from notice of the NLRC decision or resolution, or from denial of a motion for reconsideration. This period is not shortened by requesting an extension.

• Extensions are limited. No extension of time to file a petition for certiorari shall be granted except for compelling reasons, and in no case exceeding 15 days. But requesting an extension does not waive the remaining days of the original 60-day period.

• Count carefully. When the last day of a period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline moves to the next working day. Miscalculating this can cost a case its life.

• Courts must respect the full period. A court that dismisses a petition before the 60-day period expires commits grave abuse of discretion, which may be remedied by a higher court.

• Act promptly on errors. If counsel realizes a procedural mistake, filing a manifestation or motion explaining the error—while the period is still running—can preserve the client's rights.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.