Hang v. Paredes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An action for a sum of money was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The MTC dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and awarded damages and attorney's fees to the defendant. Procedural History: The plaintiff appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC decision in toto. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The RTC dismissed the Notice of Appeal, ruling that a petition for review was the proper remedy, and ordered the records remanded to the MTC. The Petition: The plaintiff then filed a Petition for Review with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which was dismissed. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. The plaintiff filed the present petition seeking reversal of the IAC's rulings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's petition for review. Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's notice of appeal. Whether the decision of the trial court had become final and executory, and the effect of the writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The rulings of the appellate court are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Intermediate Appellate Court's dismissal of the petition for review: The Supreme Court held that the Intermediate Appellate Court correctly dismissed the petition for review. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal or the filing of a petition for review within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to do so renders the decision final and executory. On the issue of the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court found that the Regional Trial Court correctly ruled that a petition for review, not a notice of appeal, was the proper remedy under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The petitioner's counsel committed a mistake by filing a notice of appeal instead of the prescribed petition for review. On the issue of the decision becoming final and executory, and the effect of the writ of execution: The Court affirmed that the decision had become final and executory due to the petitioner's failure to file the correct remedy within the reglementary period. The petitioner received the decision on September 23, 1985, and had until October 8, 1985, to file a petition for review. The filing of a notice of appeal did not toll this period. The Court reiterated the principle that a client is bound by the acts, including mistakes, of their counsel in procedural matters, citing Isaac vs. Mendoza. The Court noted that during the pendency of the petition, a writ of execution was issued by the lower court, and the petitioner admitted to paying the judgment award of P7,000.00. This satisfaction of the writ of execution operates as a bar to the present petition, further solidifying the finality of the original decision.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review within the reglementary period, as mandated by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, renders the decision final and executory, and the client is bound by the mistakes of counsel in procedural matters.