The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition filed by the Marcos family seeking to stop the Makati City Regional Trial Court from proceeding with the case filed by martial law victims to enforce a US court’s ruling that awarded them US$2-billion in damages.
In a three-page resolution, the appeals court’s Special 13th Division through Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla denied the motion for extension filed by the Marcos family to appeal the May 20 and Aug. 3, 2016 orders of Makati RTC Branch 134 Judge Elpidio Calis.
Both orders denied their motion to dismiss the case filed by the human rights victims led by former Commission on Human Rights (CHR) head Loreta Ann Rosales, Joel Lamangan, Hilda Narciso, Priscilla Mijares and Jose Duran.
Petitioners cited heavy workload for asking for an extension to file their petition for certiorari.
They said they received a copy of the Makati RTC order on August 12, 2016, giving them 60 days or until October 11, 2016 to file a petition for certiorari.
But “due to urgent professional work including the preparation for the certiorari petitions filed before the Supreme Court questioning the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos, petitioners were unable to prepare their petition.”
Thus, the Marcoses prayed that they be given an additional period of 30 days from October 11, 2016 until November 10, 2016 within which to file their petition.
The appeals court, however noted that the high court en banc has issued an administrative order amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
It noted that the amendment deleted the clause that allowed an extension of the period to file a petition for certiorari for compelling reasons.
“As it stands now, parties are only given an unextendible 60-day period from notice of judgment or from notice of denial of their motion for reconsideration within which to file a petition for certiorari,” the appeals court said.
While the amendment did not make the filing of a motion for extension absolutely prohibited, the appeals court said it sees no reason to relax the rules in this case.
It pointed out that the heavy workload of the petitioners’ counsel is often “self-serving and as such, is hardly a compelling meritorious reason to deviate from the 60-day rule.”
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Samuel Gaerlan and Jhosep Lopez.
In 1991, a complaint for damages was filed with the US District Court of Hawaii against the Marcos estate. The complainants said they were the victims during the Martial law era.
Complainants invoked the Alien Tort Act as basis for the US’ jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involved a suit by aliens for tortious violations of international law.
In February 1995, the US District Court, presided by Judge Manuel Real, rendered a final ruling over the case awarding the plaintiff class a total of $1,964,005,859.90.
The final judgment was eventually affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a decision on December 17, 1996.
The victims then filed a case in court for the recognition of the US ruling as required under Rule 38 Section 48 of the Rules of Court which provides that such foreign judgment has to be recognized and enforced in the Philippines through a case filed with Philippine courts.