Scribd
Upload
66 views

Rule 64 - #2 - Pates vs. COMELEC (BARDE)

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari against a COMELEC resolution two days late. He argued that the fresh period rule under Rule 65 for petitions for certiorari should apply to petitions filed under Rule 64 against COMELEC rulings. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion for reconsideration, holding that Rule 64 contains its own rules for filing petitions against COMELEC decisions within 30 days from receipt, separate from Rule 65. Rule 64 cannot simply be equated to Rule 65, even if it refers to the latter rule.

Uploaded by

Cali Ey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views

Rule 64 - #2 - Pates vs. COMELEC (BARDE)

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari against a COMELEC resolution two days late. He argued that the fresh period rule under Rule 65 for petitions for certiorari should apply to petitions filed under Rule 64 against COMELEC rulings. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion for reconsideration, holding that Rule 64 contains its own rules for filing petitions against COMELEC decisions within 30 days from receipt, separate from Rule 65. Rule 64 cannot simply be equated to Rule 65, even if it refers to the latter rule.

Uploaded by

Cali Ey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

NILO T. PATES v.

COMELEC
GR. No. 184915 June 30, 2009

Topic: Rule 64, Section 3, Rules of Court – Time to file petition

Facts:

Petitioner filed his petition for certiorari on the final COMELEC Resolution on October 22, 2008, two days
late, which must be filed 30 days from such notice. However it fell on a Saturday (October 18, 2008), as
the petitioner only had the remaining period of 26 days to file his petition after using up 4 days in
preparing and filing his Motion for Reconsideration. His petition was dismissed but he insists that the
fresh period rule applicable to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should also apply to petitions for
certiorari of COMELEC rulings filed under Rule 64. He asks for Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted. (NO)

Held:

Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or
by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Court on certiorari by
the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of Court
provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the COMELEC and the
Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the application of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for
certiorari, subject to the exception clause except as hereinafter provided. Rule 64, however, cannot
simply be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule.

You might also like