RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC - POLICY AND PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES TO EXPEDITE THE DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF PENDING CASES OR MATTERS, APRIL 7, 1988
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated April 7, 1988
The Court approved the final daft of the "Resolution Adopting Policy and Procedural Guidelines for the Supreme Court in the implementation of Sec. 12, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, dated January 28, 1988" as deliberated upon in previous sessions and authorized its release and circularization among all lower courts and the Integrated Bar the Philippines as follows:
Considering the provisions of Sec. 12, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating the adoption of a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court and the lower courts, prior to the effectivity of the Constitution, and complementing the Circular of even date to be issued to lower trial courts on the same subject-matter, the Court Resolved to adopt formally the following policy and procedural guidelines.
1. Petitions for Review of decisions and final orders of the Court of Appeals and other lower courts shall be strictly scrutinized as to their substantial merits, bearing in mind that a review is not a matter of right so that there shall be a strict adherence to Rule 45, Section 4, of the Rules of Courts delineating the grounds for allowance of a review to avoid delays in the enforcement of final judgments and orders of lower courts. This is particularly applicable in collection and ejectment or detainer cases and manifestly dilatory petitions for review.
(a) The provisions of Rule 45, Section 4 are herewith reproduced for ready reference:
Sec. 4. Review of Court of Appeals' decision, discretionary. — A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully presuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not therefore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.
(b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.
(b) The same criteria shall be applied by the Court of Appeals in petition for review of judgments or final orders of trial courts.
(c) It is not enough that the Rule's criteria be reproduced as mere ceremonial phrases in the petition for review. The petition must state specifically the question of substance on the questioned decision or order that has not heretofore been determined by the Supreme Court or that has been decided probably not in accord with a specific provision of law or with specific applicable decisions of the Supreme Court or the specific accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings from which the questioned decision has departed as to call for an exercise of the Appellate Courts' power of supervision.
2. The undesirable practice of cluttering up the record of the case with extraneous pleadings and materials shall no longer be tolerated. For an orderly management of the case record, only pleadings allowed in the Rules of Court or required by the Court may be allowed. All other pleadings and documents may be filed only with leave of court. Where no such leave is granted, within one week from the date the item is reported in the Court's agenda, the same shall be ipso facto disregarded and expunged from the record. The Clerk of Court shall, in such case mark all the pages as EXPUNGED and staple them together.
3. As a matter of general policy, petitions for extensions of time to file petitions for review of the decisions of the granted for a period more than THIRTY DAYS, except when the Court in the exercise of its sound discretion should a grant a longer period on compelling grounds towards the ends of substantial justice and avoiding a miscarriage of justice.
4. Similarly, no extensions of time to file a required pleading or comment shall be granted for more than 30 days unless valid and compelling reasons exist to grant a longer period.
5. As a general policy, no motion for extension of time to file a motion for recommendation shall be granted after the Court has rendered its judgment, especially in cases specified in paragraph 1 hereof.
6. Where the Court has declared its judgment to be immediately executory no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
7. Where the Court has resolved to deny a motion for reconsideration and decrees the denial to be final, no motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained; and
8. These guidelines, when applicable, shall likewise govern the Court of Appeals' power of review of decisions and final orders of the lower trial courts.
The Clerk of Court is directed to circularize this Resolution among all lower courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
(Sgd.) DANIEL T. MARTINEZ
Clerk of Court
