Obando v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the consolidated probate proceedings for the estates of Jose Figueras and his second wife, Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras. Jose Figueras died in 1964, leaving heirs Alegria and his two sons from a previous marriage, Francisco and Eduardo. Alegria died in 1979, and Felizardo Obando, claiming to be her nephew and heir, initiated probate proceedings for her will. Both probate proceedings were consolidated. Eduardo Figueras and Felizardo Obando were appointed co-administrators. Later, criminal charges for falsification were filed against Felizardo and Juan Obando after NBI and Constabulary findings indicated Alegria's will was forged, leading to their conviction. 2. Procedural History: Following the conviction of Felizardo and Juan Obando for falsification, Eduardo Figueras and intervenor Fritz Strebel filed a motion to remove Felizardo as co-administrator, citing his failure to account for rentals and his criminal conviction. The probate court, in an Order dated December 17, 1997, denied the motion to remove Eduardo but granted the motion to remove Felizardo. Felizardo's subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied, and the probate court dismissed Special Proceeding No. 123948 (Alegria's probate) due to the forged will. Felizardo filed a Notice of Appeal on August 6, 1998, which the probate court denied due course in an Order dated August 27, 1998, deeming the orders final due to the filing of prohibited second and third motions for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the appellate court's decision and resolution and to compel the Regional Trial Court to give due course to their notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding that the appeal was not seasonably filed due to the prohibited motions for reconsideration and that certiorari was not a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioners now seek review by this Court, invoking liberal construction of procedural rules, but the Court of Appeals found no warrant for such application, upholding the dismissal of the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus. Whether the probate court erred in denying due course to the notice of appeal. Whether the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners were proscribed by the Rules of Court. Whether the notice of appeal and record on appeal were seasonably filed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 7, 1999, is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the petition for certiorari and mandamus: The Court held that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. Since an appeal was the proper remedy, and the reglementary period to appeal had lapsed due to the filing of prohibited motions for reconsideration, the petition for certiorari and mandamus was correctly dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a remedy of last resort, intended to keep inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, not to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in findings. On the denial of due course to the notice of appeal: The probate court correctly denied due course to the notice of appeal. The Rules of Court explicitly prohibit a second motion for reconsideration. Petitioners filed not only a second but also a third motion for reconsideration. The filing of these prohibited motions did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed six months after the denial of the first motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, rendering the orders of removal and dismissal final. On the proscribed nature of the motions for reconsideration: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners were proscribed. Specifically, the second and third motions for reconsideration were prohibited under the Rules of Court. The filing of a prohibited motion does not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. Consequently, the order dismissing Special Proceeding No. 123948 and removing Felizardo Obando as co-administrator became final and executory. On the timeliness of the notice of appeal: The notice of appeal was not seasonably filed. The reglementary period to appeal commenced from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. Since the subsequent motions for reconsideration were prohibited and did not toll the period, the appeal filed much later was correctly denied due course by the probate court. The Court reiterated that the Rules of Court are explicit on the prohibition of second motions for reconsideration, and by extension, third motions.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration is prohibited and does not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.