Llantero v. Court Of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. (Corporation), the registered owner of a parcel of land since July 8, 1914, filed an action for recovery of possession against Moises Llantero (petitioner) for allegedly occupying a portion of the land and constructing a house thereon without consent. Petitioner claimed to have bought the land from Felicidad Campos. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal ruled in favor of the Corporation, ordering petitioner to remove his house, surrender possession, pay monthly rentals, and costs. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision on May 11, 1967. Petitioner received a copy on May 30, 1967. The Petition: Petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 14, 1967, by registered mail, but erroneously used the docket number of another case (CA G.R. No. 26772-R) instead of the correct one (CA G.R. No. 27311-R). This caused the motion to be attached to the wrong case file. Consequently, no motion for reconsideration was on record for CA G.R. No. 27311-R, leading to the finality of the judgment and the remand of the records for execution. Petitioner later filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on November 11, 1967. The present petition for certiorari seeks to set aside this denial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entering the judgment as final and executory despite the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. Whether the date of mailing should be considered the date of filing for the Motion for Reconsideration, considering the erroneous docket number. Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in not setting aside the entry of judgment, given the circumstances of the counsel's negligence and the nature of the motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the finality of judgment and the entry of judgment: The Supreme Court held that while the date of mailing is generally considered the date of filing, this rule is not applicable when the motion bears an erroneous docket number. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, by bearing the wrong docket number, could not be attached to the correct case file. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, the motion was legally inexistent. The Court of Appeals committed no error in remanding the case for execution of the judgment because, without a valid motion for reconsideration on record, the judgment had already become final and executory. On the issue of the date of mailing as the date of filing: The Court reiterated the rule that the date of mailing, as shown by the post office registry receipt, is considered the date of filing. However, this principle was rendered moot by the fact that the motion itself was defective due to the erroneous docket number. The Court emphasized that the core issue was not the timeliness of mailing but the legal efficacy of the motion filed. The erroneous docket number rendered the motion legally inexistent, irrespective of when it was mailed. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' refusal to set aside the entry of judgment: The Court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner's counsel's oversight in using the wrong docket number was deemed inexcusable negligence. The Court noted that the counsel was also handling another case with a similar motion around the same time, negating the claim that the mistake was a mere oversight due to simultaneous preparation. The client, petitioner, had to bear the adverse consequences of his lawyer's inexcusable negligence, as established jurisprudence binds a client to such acts of their counsel. Furthermore, the arguments presented in the motion for reconsideration were found to be a mere reiteration of evidence already presented and rejected by the trial court, indicating the motion was pro forma and intended only for delay.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration bearing an erroneous docket number, which prevents it from being attached to the correct expediente, is legally inexistent and does not toll the reglementary period for filing an appeal, rendering the judgment final and executory. The client is bound by the inexcusable negligence of their counsel.