MARCELO VS.

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (PCIB) Doctrine: The rule is that a motion for extension of time to file a MR/MNT cannot be filed before the lower courts. However, it can be filed before the Supreme Court. Facts: 1. Spouses Marcelo obtained several loans from PCIB. As a security for all their loans (amounting to Php3.99M), the Spouses mortgaged six parcels of land situated in Baliuag, Bulacan. 2. Upon default, PCIB filed a petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. Notices of the sale were posted on Meralco posts around the area. A copy of the notice was also mailed to PCIB and the Spouses. It was also published in The Times Newsweekly, a newspaper of general circulation. 3. PCIB was the highest bidder in the public auction. This prompted the Spouses to file a complaint before the RTC of Bulacan alleging that there were irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings (posting and publication requirements). 4. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses and rendered the foreclosure proceeding void on the ground that the publication of the notice of sale was made in a tabloid. 5. PCIB filed an appeal with the CA. In January 31, 2007, the CA overturned the ruling of the trial court and ruled that the foreclosure proceeding was valid. 6. Spouses Marcelo filed their Motion for Reconsideration 11 days late. Hence, they filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Motion for Reconsideration of the January 31, 2007 ruling. However, the CA denied this because the time for filing the same was non-extendible. 7. The CA made an entry of judgment of the assailed decision that became final and executory. Hence the present petition for review on certiorari. Issues: 1. W/N the CA erred in ruling that there can be no extension to file a motion for reconsideration. 2. W/N the foreclosure proceeding was valid. Held: 1. NO, THE CA IS CORRECT. A. Under Section 1, Rule 37 of the RoC, a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or a final order should be filed within the period for appeal, which is within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. B. The 2002 Internal Rules of the CA also states that unless an appeal or a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed within the 15-day reglementary period, the CAs decision becomes final. Hence, the general rule is that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is allowed. C. However, the rule as to the non-extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is not absolute. Motions for extension of time to file a MNT or MR may be filed only in connection with cases pending before the Supreme Court, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. No such motion may be filed in the lower courts. 2. YES, THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS VALID.

A. What the law requires is for the notices to be placed in an area where the same is perceptible to the public. With regard to the publication issue, for a newspaper to be of general circulation, it is enough that it is published for the dissemination of local news and general information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers and that it is published at regular intervals. The newspaper need not have the largest circulation, so long as it is of general circulation.