5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [12] Id. at 98-100. [13] Id. [14] Id. at 106-114. [15] G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 139. [16] AMENDMENTS TO RULES 41, 45, 58 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT. [17] In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra at 146, we stated that: In granting the private respondent’s motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals disregarded A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. The action amounted to a modification, if not outright reversal, by the Court of Appeals of A.M. No. 07-7-12SC. In so doing, the Court of Appeals arrogated to itself a power it did not possess, a power that only this Court may exercise. For this reason, the challenged resolutions x x x were invalid as they were rendered by the Court of Appeals in excess of its jurisdiction. [18] CA rollo, pp. 115-183. [19] Id. at 184. [20] Rollo, p. 99. [21] Id. at 10-11. [22] G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 738, 747-750. [23] Supra note 15 at 144-146. In that case, we held that: As a rule, an amendment by the deletion of certain words or phrases indicates an intention to change its meaning. It is presumed that the deletion would not have been made if there had been no intention to effect a change in the meaning of the law or rule. The amended law or rule should accordingly be given a construction different from that previous to its amendment. If the Court intended to retain the authority of the proper courts to grant extensions under Section 4 of Rule 65, the paragraph providing for such authority would have been preserved. The removal of the said paragraph under the amendment by A.M. No. 07-712-SC of Section 4, Rule 65 simply meant that there can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56563 9/12