Short answer. Yes. Instead of requiring a comment, the Court of Appeals may dismiss the petition outright if it finds it patently without merit, filed manifestly to delay the case, or raising questions too insubstantial to require consideration — otherwise it will require a comment within ten days.

What the law says

The Court of Appeals may require the respondent to file a comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss, within ten days from notice, or dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

Rule 43, Section 8 — Action on the petition. Read the full provision →

Two paths after a petition is filed

Once a Rule 43 petition is filed, the Court of Appeals faces a fork in the road. Section 8 lets it require the respondent to file a comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss, within ten days from notice, or dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration, giving the court an efficient early screening tool. Which path the court takes depends entirely on its own initial read of the petition's apparent merit, before the respondent has said anything at all.

Why 'comment, not a motion to dismiss'

The rule specifically calls for a comment rather than a motion to dismiss from the respondent. That distinction keeps the respondent's initial filing focused on addressing the merits of the petition, rather than opening a separate procedural battle over whether the case should be thrown out — that screening decision belongs to the court itself, at the outset, rather than being litigated back and forth between the parties before the merits are even reached.

The three grounds for early dismissal

Outright dismissal without waiting for a comment is available only on specific grounds: the petition is patently without merit, it is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or its questions are too insubstantial to require consideration. This gives the court a filter against weak or dilatory petitions while still leaving genuine, substantial cases to proceed to the comment stage, where the respondent gets a full opportunity to be heard on the merits. A petitioner confident in the substance of their case has little to fear from this screening step, since a genuinely substantial petition would not fall within any of the three grounds.

What this discretion does not authorize

Section 8 lets the Court of Appeals skip the comment stage, but it does not let the court dismiss on grounds outside the three listed, and it does not bind the respondent to anything if the court instead opts for the comment route — the ten-day period runs against the respondent only once that comment is actually required. If the respondent is required to comment and misses the ten-day window, the consequence falls on the respondent under the Court's ordinary rules for a party who fails to timely comply, not on the petitioner, since it is the respondent's obligation that the deadline attaches to.

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.