Short answer. Not automatically. Only if the Court finds the petition sufficient in form and substance does it order the respondents to comment within ten days; otherwise the Court may dismiss the petition outright, including for being filed to delay or raising unsubstantial questions.

What the law says

If the Supreme Court finds the petition sufficient in form and substance, it shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within ten days from notice thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition outright. The Court may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for delay, or the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.

Rule 64, Section 6 — Order to comment. Read the full provision →

A screening step before the case proceeds

Filing a Rule 64 petition does not automatically put the respondents on the clock to answer. The Supreme Court first examines whether the petition is sufficient in both form and substance, checking things like proper verification, the required number of copies, and whether the petition states a clear case for review. Only after making that determination does it issue an order requiring the respondents to comment, giving them ten days from notice to do so. This screening function means the ten-day comment period is not the first stage of every Rule 64 case, but a stage the petition must actually earn by clearing the sufficiency check first.

What happens if the petition falls short

If the Court does not find the petition sufficient in form and substance, it may dismiss it outright, without ever requiring the other side to file anything in response. This means the burden falls squarely on the petitioner to get the petition's form and substance right from the very first filing, since Rule 64 does not guarantee a further opportunity to correct defects once the Court has already found the petition wanting. This underscores why careful attention to Rule 64's formal requirements at the outset matters as much as the substantive merit of the grounds being raised.

Two more dismissal grounds

Even a petition that looks properly formed on paper can still be dismissed if the Court finds it was filed manifestly for delay, or if the questions it raises are too unsubstantial to justify further proceedings. Both grounds let the Court screen out weak or dilatory petitions before investing further time and resources in a case that was never going to warrant relief, protecting the docket from petitions with no real chance of success. A petitioner should therefore make sure the petition is filed promptly and raises a genuinely substantial question, not simply repeat arguments already rejected below.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.