TITLE OF CASE: VINUYA VS ROMULO

CITATION: 732 SCRA 595

FACTS:

In 1998, victims of the comfort women system approached the Executive Department
through the Department of Justice in order to request assistance to file a claim against
the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of comfort
women stations in the Philippines. Subsequently, the Executive Department ignored
their request and refused to file a claim against the said Japanese officials and military.
Thereafter, said victims approached the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA),
Department of Justice (DOJ) and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) but were
similarly disregarded.

Aggrieved on the denial of their request, on May 8, 2004, petitioners file a petition for
certiorari claiming that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary
committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to espouse the claims of Filipina
comfort women.

ISSUE:

Whether or not certiorari was timely.

RULING:

No, the resort to certiorari was not timely.

Section 4 of Rule 65 provides that the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new
trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall
be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner receives
the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the motion for
reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not. To
establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the assailed
judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new
trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be
dismissed. There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari
brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution was received; second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was
filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure of petitioner to
comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance with the
Rules.

Thus, the petition alone in the year 1998 only as the time when petitioners approached
the Department of Justice for assistance, but does not specifically state when they
received the denial of their request for assistance warranted the outright dismissal of the
petition. Even assuming that petitioners received the notice of the denial of their request
for assistance in 1998, their filing of the petition only on March 8, 2004 was still way
beyond the 60-day period. Only the most compelling reasons could justify the Courts
acts of disregarding and lifting the strictures of the rule on the period.

BAUTISTA, SHERYL YU
TITLE OF THE CASE: LIMKAICHONG VS COMELEC

CITATION: GR 178831-32

FACTS:

On March 2007, Limkaichong filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy
(COC) for the House of Representatives. Contending that she is not a natural-born
Filipino citizen, two separate disqualification cases were filed against her before the
COMELEC. Subsequently, Limkaichong emerged winner in the elections.

On May 17, 2007, the COMELEC granted the petitions in the disqualification cases and
directed Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) to strike her name from the list of
eligible candidates. Aggrieved, Limkaichong filed a Motion for Reconsideration before
the COMELEC. Subsequently, COMELEC en banc denied the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the latter.

On August 1, 2007, she filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 praying for the annulment of the May 17, 2007 Joint
Resolution of the COMELEC the June 29, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC En
Banc in the disqualification cases for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 was proper.

RULING.

No, the certiorari was not properly filed.

Section 1 of Rule 64 provides that the rule shall govern the review of judgments and
final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on
Audit.
In the case at bar, the May 17, 2007 resolution of the COMELEC disqualifying
Limkaichong and suspending her proclamation cannot yet be implemented considering
that she timely filed a motion for reconsideration. Thus, pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule
18 and Section 2 Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Joint Resolution
has not yet attained finality for it to be implemented.

Therefore, having no finality yet of the judgment, Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 cannot
be properly assailed in this case.