Deadline to File a Petition for Certiorari in Administrative Cases in the Philippines
Introduction
In the Philippine legal system, administrative cases involve proceedings before government agencies, boards, or tribunals that exercise quasi-judicial functions, such as disciplinary actions against public officials, regulatory decisions, or adjudications of rights and obligations under administrative laws. When a party seeks judicial review of an adverse decision in such cases, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is a common remedy. This petition addresses instances where the administrative body has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The deadline for filing this petition is a critical procedural requirement, as failure to comply can result in the dismissal of the petition and the finality of the administrative decision. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the deadlines applicable to filing petitions for certiorari in administrative cases, drawing from the Rules of Court, relevant statutes, jurisprudence, and procedural nuances specific to the Philippine context. It covers the general rule, exceptions, computation of periods, extensions, and consequences of non-compliance, among other aspects.
Legal Basis for the Petition for Certiorari
The primary legal foundation for petitions for certiorari is found in Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court (as amended). Section 1 thereof defines certiorari as a remedy to annul or modify proceedings of any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions when such entity has acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. This rule applies broadly to administrative cases, which are quasi-judicial in nature, such as those handled by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Office of the Ombudsman, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and other regulatory bodies.
Administrative cases are governed by the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), which emphasizes due process and finality of decisions. However, judicial intervention via certiorari is available when administrative remedies have been exhausted, as mandated by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies under jurisprudence like Paulate v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 123495, 2001).
General Deadline for Filing
Under Section 4 of Rule 65, the petition for certiorari must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. This period is non-extendible as a general rule, reflecting the policy of speedy disposition of cases and the prevention of undue delays in administrative enforcement.
Starting Point of the Period: The 60-day period commences from the date of receipt of the notice of the decision or resolution by the petitioner or their counsel. In cases where a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed and allowed under the rules of the administrative body, the period is interrupted and recommences from the notice of the denial of such motion. This is explicitly provided in Rule 65, Section 4: "If such motion is filed, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the said motion."
Applicability to Administrative Cases: This deadline applies uniformly to most administrative cases unless a special law provides otherwise. For instance, in disciplinary actions by the CSC against civil servants, or by the Ombudsman under Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act), the 60-day rule governs petitions for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) or Supreme Court (SC). Jurisprudence, such as Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No. 129742, 1998), affirms that certiorari is the proper mode to elevate Ombudsman decisions to the SC, with the 60-day deadline strictly observed.
Computation of the 60-Day Period
The computation of the filing period follows the general rules on reckoning time under Rule 22 of the Rules of Court:
Exclusion of First Day: The day of receipt of the notice is excluded, and the last day is included, unless it falls on a non-working day (Saturday, Sunday, or holiday), in which case it is extended to the next working day.
Service and Notice: Notice is deemed received based on the mode of service—personal, registered mail, or substituted service—as per Rule 13. For mailed notices, the period starts from actual receipt, not the mailing date, pursuant to Enriquez v. Enriquez (G.R. No. 139303, 2002). In administrative cases, agencies often use registered mail, and proof of receipt (e.g., registry return card) is crucial.
Interruptions: Only a timely motion for reconsideration resets the period. Other motions or appeals within the administrative hierarchy do not toll the 60-day count unless they qualify as such. For multi-level administrative appeals (e.g., from a regional office to the central office), the final decision triggers the certiorari period.
In electronic service contexts, under the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC) and subsequent amendments, e-mail or electronic notices may apply if authorized by the administrative body, with receipt timestamped accordingly.
Exceptions and Special Deadlines
While the 60-day rule is standard, certain administrative cases are subject to shorter or different periods under special laws or rules:
Election-Related Administrative Cases: Under the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), petitions for certiorari challenging Commission on Elections (COMELEC) decisions must be filed within 30 days from notice, as per Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which modifies Rule 65 for election cases.
Labor Administrative Cases: For decisions of the NLRC, a petition for certiorari to the CA under Rule 65 must be filed within 60 days, but the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) emphasizes that NLRC decisions become final after 10 calendar days if no appeal is taken. However, certiorari remains available within the 60-day window post-finality notice.
Agrarian Reform Cases: Under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), as amended, decisions of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) are reviewable by certiorari to the CA within 15 days from receipt, per DARAB Rules. This shorter period aims to expedite land reform disputes.
Environmental and IPRA Cases: In cases under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (Republic Act No. 8371) or environmental administrative proceedings (e.g., by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources), the 60-day rule applies unless specified otherwise in departmental orders.
Tax Administrative Cases: Petitions for certiorari against Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) or Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) rulings follow the 60-day rule, but appeals to the CTA en banc are within 15 days, and further certiorari to the SC is under Rule 45 (appeal by certiorari) with a 15-day period.
Jurisprudence allows liberal construction in exceptional cases, such as when there is a clear grave abuse of discretion or when public interest demands, as in Lagoc v. Malanyaon (G.R. No. 211003, 2015). However, the SC has consistently held that the 60-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional (Saint Louis University v. Cobarrubias, G.R. No. 187104, 2010).
Requests for Extension
Extensions are generally not allowed under Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (2007), which deleted the provision for extensions. However, in highly meritorious cases involving substantial justice, the courts may relax the rule, as seen in Domingo v. Scheer (G.R. No. 154745, 2004). Petitioners must file a motion for extension before the expiration, justifying the request (e.g., excusable negligence, voluminous records).
In administrative cases, agencies may have internal rules on extensions for motions for reconsideration, but these do not affect the certiorari deadline.
Effects of Non-Compliance
Failure to file within the prescribed period renders the administrative decision final and executory. Consequences include:
Dismissal of Petition: Courts will dismiss outright for being time-barred, without delving into merits (Ysidoro v. Leonardo-De Castro, G.R. No. 171513, 2010).
Res Judicata and Finality: The decision becomes immutable, barring further challenges except in void judgments.
Sanctions: Frivolous or dilatory petitions may result in administrative sanctions against counsel under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Remedies for Late Filing: In rare cases, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 may be availed if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence is proven, but this is not a substitute for certiorari.
Procedural Requirements and Best Practices
To ensure timely filing:
Verification and Certification: The petition must include a verification and certification against forum shopping, with attachments like certified true copies of the assailed decision.
Where to File: For most administrative cases, file with the CA (original jurisdiction), or directly with the SC in cases involving pure questions of law or grave abuse by constitutional bodies.
Service: Serve copies on the respondent agency and adverse parties simultaneously with filing.
Practitioners should maintain diligent tracking of receipt dates, use calendars for deadlines, and exhaust administrative remedies promptly to avoid pretermitting the certiorari period.
Conclusion
The deadline for filing a petition for certiorari in administrative cases in the Philippines is a cornerstone of procedural due process, balancing the need for finality in administrative decisions with the right to judicial review. While the 60-day rule under Rule 65 provides a uniform standard, exceptions in special laws underscore the tailored nature of administrative justice. Strict adherence is essential, as courts prioritize procedural rules to uphold administrative efficiency and public order. Legal professionals and litigants must navigate these timelines with precision to safeguard rights in the complex landscape of Philippine administrative law.