Bethel Realty and Development
Corporation vs. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, and Spouses Marjorie and
Nemesio Visaya
G.R. No. 184482
July 4, 2012
Second Division
Ponente: Perez, J.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly
applied and interpreted the provisions on the material data rule under Section
4, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46 of the rules of Court (Petition for Review on
Certiorari) warranting the denial of its petition before the CA
Ruling:
The petition is denied.
1. Administrative remedies were
available to petitioner to question the decision of the HLURB.
The rule is that the special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available to an aggrieved party only when
there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. Otherwise, the petition will not prosper even if the alleged ground
is grave abuse of discretion.
In the instant case, the petitioner failed to exhaust all
other remedies available to it.
2. Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court in relation
to Section 4, Rule 65 of the same rule must be strictly observed; the petitions
were filed beyond the prescribed period
The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court may be instituted not later than sixty (60) days from notice of
the judgment, order or resolution.
To ensure compliance with the prescribed period, Section 3,
Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides that the petition shall indicate when
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received, failure of
which shall warrant the dismissal of the petition.
In the instant case, petitioner failed to mention when it was
informed of the decision. As stated in the aforementioned rule, failure to
indicate the material dates shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition.
The 60-day period within which to file the petition must be
strictly observed. All considered, the Court concluded that both the first and
second petitions were filed beyond the 60-day prescribed period.
