5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari. Entry of Judgment[20] was already issued by the NLRC on August 13, 2009. Per NLRC Rules, the June 29, 2009 Resolution became final and executory on July 18, 2009 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment. Issues 1. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT NOTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT OUTRIGHT FOR HAVING BEEN FILED BEYOND THE MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL 60-DAY PERIOD REQUIRED BY SECTION 4, RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED BY A.M. NO. 07-7-12-SC. 2. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN, IN NOTING THE VERY LATE PETITION FILED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT, IT GROSSLY IGNORED THIS HONORABLE COURT’S VERY RECENT RULING IN LAGUNA METTS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ARIES C. CAALAM AND GERALDINE ESGUERRA (G.R. NO. 185220, JULY 27, 2009), WHICH DISALLOWED ANY MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65.[21] (Underscoring and emphasis in the original) Our Ruling There is merit in the petition. In Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc.[22] we had the occasion to settle the seeming conflict on various jurisprudence touching upon the issue of whether the period for filing a petition for certiorari may be extended. In said case we stated that the general rule, as laid down in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[23] is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC[24] where no provision for the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari exists, unlike in the original Section 4 of Rule 65[25] which allowed the filing of such a motion but only for compelling reason and in no case exceeding 15 days.[26] Under exceptional cases, however, and as held in Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan,[27] the 60-day period may be extended subject to the court’s sound discretion. In Domdom, we stated that the deletion of the provisions in Rule 65 pertaining to extension of time did not make the filing of such pleading absolutely prohibited. “If such were the intention, the deleted portion could just have simply been reworded to state that ‘no extension of time to file the petition shall be granted.’ Absent such a prohibition, motions for extension are allowed, subject to the court’s sound elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56563 4/12