Pates v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 184915 (30 June 2009)

DOCTRINE:

Under this unique nature of the exceptions, a party asking for the suspension of the Rules of
Court comes to us with the heavy burden of proving that he deserves to be accorded exceptional
treatment. Every plea for a liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an
explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the rules and bya justifi cation for the
requested liberal construction. Significantly, the petitioner presented no exceptional
circumstance or any compelling reasonto warrant the non-application of Section 3, Rule 64 to his
petition. He failed to explain why his fi ling was late. Other than his appeal to history,uniformity,
and convenience, he did not explain why we should adopt and apply the fresh period rule to an
election case.

FACTS:

On Feb 04, 2008 Petitioner received the resolution of the COMELEC’s First Division. On Feb
08, 2008 the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution which motion was
elevated to the COMELEC enbanc for resolution. On Sept. 22, 2008, the petitioner received a
resolution of the COMELEC enbanc denying his motion for reconsideration. On October 22,
2008, petitioner filed with the SC his petition for certiorari under Rule 64 to set aside the
COMELEC en banc’s resolution. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition
was filed out of time. Petitioner contended that pursuant to the Neypes rule, he had a fresh 30day
period from 22 september, the day when he received notice of denial of his motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for certiorari under rule 64 was timely filed.

HELD: NO. The petition was not timely filed. Sec 3 of RULE 64, Under this unique nature of
the exceptions, a party askingfor the suspension of the Rules of Court comes to us with the heavy
burdenof proving that he deserves to be accorded exceptional treatment. Every pleafor a liberal
construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by anexplanation of why the party-
litigant failed to comply with the rules and bya justification for the requested liberal construction.
Significantly, thepetitioner presented no exceptional circumstance or any compelling reasonto
warrant the non-application of Section 3, Rule 64 to his petition. Hefailed to explain why his
filing was late. Other than his appeal to history,uniformity, and convenience, he did not explain
why we should adopt andapply the fresh period rule to an election case.