Torno v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a forcible entry case initiated by Spouses Felipe and Ada Mabilangan against Victor, Rodolfo, and Elena Torno. The Mabilangans alleged that the Tornos unlawfully entered and occupied premises owned by the Mabilangans, identified by TCT No. 264594, located at 69 Montreal Street, Cubao, Quezon City. 2. Procedural History: The forcible entry case, Civil Case No. 38696, was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City, Branch 38. After the pre-trial conference, trial commenced. However, the petitioners and their counsel failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on June 24, 1983, leading the MTC to declare their cross-examination waived and allow the Mabilangans to present evidence ex-parte. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration, citing an accident involving their counsel, was denied by the MTC due to the lack of an affidavit of merit. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 102, which dismissed the petition, affirming the MTC's denial of the motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which initially dismissed the appeal but later reinstated it. Ultimately, the IAC dismissed the appeal, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and upholding the necessity of an affidavit of merit. The MTC had rendered a decision in the forcible entry case on December 2, 1983, in favor of the Mabilangans, ordering the Tornos to vacate the premises. The records indicate no appeal was taken from this MTC decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review on certiorari of the IAC's decision dated August 27, 1985, which affirmed the RTC's dismissal of their petition for certiorari. They argue for a liberal interpretation of procedural rules, specifically Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, contending that their motion for reconsideration before the MTC, though couched in general terms, should have been considered as including an affidavit of merit. They assert that the absence of a formal affidavit of merit should not have been a fatal defect, especially since an answer had already been filed. The petitioners aim to have the case remanded to the MTC for further proceedings. This Court also previously issued a Temporary Restraining Order on August 29, 1988, on equitable considerations, to restrain the execution of the MTC's decision in the forcible entry case.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was a proper petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, and whether it sufficiently complied with the requirements of an affidavit of merit and proof of excusable negligence under Rule 38. Whether the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and considering the case submitted for decision. Whether the IAC erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the petition for certiorari, considering the nature of forcible entry cases and the finality of the MTC judgment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, dated August 27, 1985, is affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued on August 29, 1988, is lifted. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the motion for reconsideration and compliance with Rule 38 requirements: The Court held that the motion partook of the nature of a petition for relief under Rule 38, which imposes specific requirements. The motion was fatally flawed because neither a proper affidavit of merit nor an affidavit sufficient to establish the lawyer's claimed illness was attached. The supposed affidavit of merit contained only general statements and the lawyer's affidavit and medical certificate were not strictly sufficient to establish excusable negligence. The delay in filing the motion suggested it was an afterthought. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court emphasized that actions for forcible entry under Rule 70 are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession, and technicalities or procedural delays should be avoided. Courts should not give undue treatment that leads to delays. On the IAC's decision and the finality of judgment: The Court pointed out that the MTC had already rendered a decision in the forcible entry case in favor of the private respondents, and no appeal was taken. By operation of law, the MTC decision became final and executory. The doctrine of finality of judgments is based on public policy, ensuring that judgments become final at a definite date, and the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution as a matter of right.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration of an order declaring cross-examination waived due to non-appearance, when seeking to reopen the case, partakes of the nature of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Such a petition is fatally defective if not accompanied by affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as required by Section 3, Rule 38.