Untangling Time: When Does the Clock Start Ticking for Relief from Judgment?

The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals and Ayala Land, Inc. (G.R. No. 190680) offers a clear reminder about the strict deadlines for filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. For litigants who miss a court deadline, this remedy is often the last chance to reopen a case—but only if filed within the precise periods set by the rules. The case clarifies when those periods begin to run and why a party's own admissions can determine the outcome.

The Facts of the Case

The case began as a tax dispute. Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) questioned a deficiency value-added tax assessment for 2003 before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA's Second Division ruled in favor of ALI, cancelling the assessment. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) appealed to the CTA en banc, which affirmed the decision on February 12, 2009.

The CIR filed a motion for reconsideration on March 4, 2009. The CTA en banc denied it in a Resolution dated March 25, 2009. However, the CIR claimed that neither he nor the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received a copy of that denial.

On June 17, 2009, the CIR received a Resolution dated June 10, 2009 stating that the CTA's decision had become final and executory. The CIR then filed a manifestation questioning the entry of judgment, and later, on October 2, 2009, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. The CTA dismissed it as filed out of time, and the CIR went to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

The Issue

The central question was whether the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the CIR's petition for relief was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 38.

The Two Reglementary Periods

The Supreme Court reiterated the two periods a party must strictly comply with when filing a petition for relief from judgment:

1. Sixty (60) days from the time the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside; and
2. Six (6) months from the entry of such judgment or final order.

Both periods must be satisfied. The Court emphasized that a petition for relief is a "final act of liberality" by the State, and this remedy cannot erode the fundamental principle that judgments must, at some definite time, attain finality.

When Did the CIR "Learn" of the Resolution?

The CIR argued that the 60-day period should be counted from August 3, 2009, when he received a copy of the CTA's Resolution dated July 29, 2009 denying his manifestation. He claimed this was when he first learned of the March 25, 2009 Resolution.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court pointed to the CIR's own petition for relief, which stated that on June 22, 2009, he had called the CTA and was informed that his motion for reconsideration had been denied by a Resolution dated March 25, 2009. The OSG's letter dated June 24, 2009 also confirmed this telephone discussion.

Thus, the CIR knew of the denial as early as June 22, 2009. Even if the 60-day period were counted from that date, the CIR had until August 24, 2009 (the next working day after August 21, 2009, which was a non-working holiday) to file his petition for relief. He filed on October 2, 2009—far beyond the deadline.

The Requirement of a Motion for Reconsideration

The Court also noted a separate procedural flaw: the CIR failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the CTA's October 30, 2009 Resolution before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for certiorari, as it gives the court an opportunity to correct its own errors. None of the recognized exceptions to this rule applied.

Practical Takeaways

• Know the two deadlines. A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within 60 days from learning of the judgment or order, and not more than 6 months from its entry. Both periods must be complied with.
• "Knowledge" is broader than formal receipt. The 60-day period can start running from the moment a party actually learns of the adverse order—even through an inquiry or telephone conversation—not only upon receiving a formal copy.
• Act promptly on any indication of an adverse ruling. Receiving an entry of judgment or a notice of finality should immediately alert a party that a decision may have been issued. Waiting for a formal copy of the underlying resolution can be fatal.
• File a motion for reconsideration before certiorari. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 generally requires a prior motion for reconsideration to give the lower court a chance to correct its own error.
• Keep records of all communications. The CIR's own admissions in pleadings and letters were used against him. A party's written statements about what it knew and when can determine compliance with reglementary periods.

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