Bolaños v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by N.S. Marketing, Inc. against Lorenzo Bolaños and Pablo Rabat for damages and/or recovery of a sum of money and attorney's fees. The complaint was lodged with the then Court of First Instance of Davao City. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Davao City rendered a summary judgment against petitioner Bolaños, holding him liable for damages, and set a hearing for the reception of evidence on the amount of damages. Subsequently, private respondent N.S. Marketing, Inc. filed a motion to attach Bolaños' real property due to alleged fictitious alienation. Numerous hearings were scheduled but repeatedly postponed. After several postponements, the case was dismissed by the trial court due to the absence of private respondent and its counsel. The trial court later granted the private respondent's motion for reconsideration, reinstating the case, but denied Bolaños' motion to lift the restraining order. Petitioners Bolaños and Rabat appealed this order to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The IAC initially ruled in favor of Bolaños and Rabat, annulling the trial court's orders. However, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent's new counsel, the IAC reversed its decision, dismissed the petition, and allowed the case to proceed on the merits. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by Bolaños and Rabat was denied by the IAC. The Petition: Lorenzo Bolaños and Pablo Rabat filed this petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Intermediate Appellate Court gravely abused its discretion by acting on a motion for reconsideration that was filed out of time. They contend that the decision of the IAC became final and executory after the period for filing a motion for reconsideration had expired, and therefore, the IAC lost jurisdiction to reconsider its own judgment. The petitioners seek to have the IAC's resolution reconsidered and its earlier decision reinstated.
Issue(s)
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court gravely abused its discretion by acting on a motion for reconsideration of its decision which was filed out of time. Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court lost jurisdiction over the case after its decision became final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated May 2, 1984, is set aside, and its decision of November 24, 1983, is reinstated. Costs are against the private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners that the private respondent's motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision was filed late. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court was served on R.D. Bagatsing and Associates on November 24, 1983, but their motion for reconsideration was filed on January 23, 1984, which is almost two months later. Under the rules, a judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days after service of notice. During this period, a party may move for reconsideration or appeal to the Supreme Court. On the issue of loss of jurisdiction: Since the private respondent did neither within the reglementary period, the judgment against it became final and executory. Consequently, the Intermediate Appellate Court lost jurisdiction over the case. The subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration could not disturb the finality of the judgment nor restore the jurisdiction that had already been lost. The Court emphasized that even if the private respondent had other counsel, the service of notice on one of the attorneys of record is generally considered notice to all, and the earliest date of receipt by any of them is the starting point for the reglementary period. Therefore, the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the belated motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
The Intermediate Appellate Court gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a motion for reconsideration that was filed out of time, as the judgment had already become final and executory, leading to the loss of the appellate court's jurisdiction over the case.