No More Extensions for Certiorari Petitions: The Strict 60-Day Rule Under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC

The Supreme Court has firmly closed the door on motions for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009), the Court ruled that the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which took effect on December 27, 2007, deleted the provision that previously allowed such extensions. This means litigants who miss the 60-day deadline risk having their petitions dismissed outright, regardless of the merits of their case.

The Case Before the Court

The case began as a labor dispute. Private respondents Aries C. Caalam and Geraldine Esguerra filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Laguna Metts Corporation (LMC). The labor arbiter ruled in their favor, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed that decision on appeal. The NLRC denied the respondents' motion for reconsideration on April 30, 2008, and their counsel received that resolution on May 26, 2008.

Under Rule 65, the respondents had 60 days from that notice—or until July 25, 2008—to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On the last day, their counsel filed a motion for extension of time, citing heavy workload and lack of funds. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and gave them a non-extendible 15-day period.

LMC challenged this, arguing that the Court of Appeals had no power to grant extensions because the amended Rule 65 no longer allowed them. The Supreme Court agreed with LMC.

The Rule Before and After the Amendment

Prior to A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, Rule 65 contained a paragraph that allowed courts to grant an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, but only for compelling reasons and in no case exceeding 15 days. The exact text of that provision is not available in the ASG law library, but the Supreme Court's decision in this case confirms that such a paragraph existed.

The amendment deleted that paragraph entirely. As the Court explained, when a rule is amended by deleting certain words or phrases, the intent is to change its meaning. If the Court had wanted to retain the authority to grant extensions, the provision would have been preserved. Its removal means that no extension can be granted, for any reason.

Why the Court Adopted a Strict Rule

The rationale behind the amendment is to prevent the abuse of the certiorari petition as a tool for delay. The Court emphasized that the 60-day period is reasonable and sufficient for a party to prepare a petition. As cited in De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 147912, April 26, 2006), this period was specifically set to avoid unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

The Court also noted that rules prescribing time periods for specific acts are regarded as mandatory and absolutely indispensable to the orderly and prompt discharge of judicial business. Procedural rules must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded merely by claiming substantial merit.

The Court of Appeals Exceeded Its Jurisdiction

In granting the extension, the Court of Appeals effectively modified or reversed A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC—a power it did not possess. Only the Supreme Court can amend the Rules of Court. The challenged resolutions were therefore invalid, having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction.

Even if the Court of Appeals had retained discretion to grant extensions, the reasons offered by the respondents' counsel did not qualify as compelling. The Court noted that heavy workload is relative and often self-serving, and standing alone, it is not a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day rule. Bare allegations of lack of funds, unsubstantiated by proof, likewise did not justify the extension, especially since the respondents could have filed the petition on time with a motion to litigate as an indigent.

Practical Takeaways

• The 60-day period is now absolute. For petitions for certiorari filed after December 27, 2007, no extension of time may be granted under any circumstance.
• Count the days carefully. The period runs from notice of the judgment or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, if one was timely filed.
• Do not rely on "compelling reasons." Heavy workload, lack of funds, or other personal circumstances of counsel will not excuse a late filing.
• File on time, even if the petition is incomplete. If financial constraints are an issue, file the petition on the last day together with a motion to litigate as an indigent, rather than risking dismissal.
• The remedy for a missed deadline is limited. A party who misses the 60-day period may have to explore other remedies, but the certiorari petition itself will be dismissed for being filed out of time.

The message from the Supreme Court is clear: strict adherence to procedural rules is essential to the orderly administration of justice. The deletion of the extension provision under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC was deliberate, and courts cannot resurrect a power that the rules no longer grant.

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