Ongpauco v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a physical altercation between Lolita R. Alamayri, a tenant operating a grocery store and residing in a building owned by Hemina M. Ongpauco, and Hemina Ongpauco, along with her relatives Victor and Frejia Majarocon, and Dave Allen M. Majarocon. The incidents involved assaults on Lolita, including hair pulling, banging her head against store fixtures, and verbal abuse, which allegedly led to her suffering a miscarriage. The conflict also involved a separate ejectment suit filed by the building owners against Lolita for refusing to vacate the premises after her lease expired. 2. Procedural History: Lolita R. Alamayri filed a complaint for damages against Hemina M. Ongpauco and her relatives in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The RTC ruled in favor of Lolita, ordering the defendants to pay substantial moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. The defendants, including the herein petitioners, appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision in its entirety. Petitioners then sought further review of the CA's ruling. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Hemina M. Ongpauco and Dave Allen M. Majarocon filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. They sought to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, primarily arguing that the lower courts erred in their factual findings and conclusions. However, a critical issue raised by the respondents and addressed by the Supreme Court was the timeliness of the petition, as the Court found that the petitioners had filed their motion for reconsideration with the CA out of time, rendering the CA decision final and unappealable.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings and conclusions.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for having been filed out of time and for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals has become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court ruled that the official records of the Court of Appeals, showing that petitioners' counsel received the assailed decision on December 3, 1997, must prevail over the petitioners' bare allegation that their counsel received it on December 11, 1997. Basic in evidence is that unsubstantiated allegations are not proof. The 15-day reglementary period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration commenced on December 3, 1997, and expired on December 18, 1997. Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration only on December 27, 1997, which was nine days after the reglementary period had lapsed. Consequently, the decision attained finality on December 18, 1997, and was no longer appealable. The Court reiterated the time-honored policy that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, grounded on public policy and sound practice that judgments must be final at a definite date fixed by law. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised within the statutory period, which is mandatory and jurisdictional. On the alleged errors in factual findings and conclusions: Even assuming, gratia argumenti, that the petition was seasonably filed, the Court noted that the main thrust of the petition was the alleged error of the lower courts in their factual findings and conclusions. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and factual issues are generally beyond the scope of certiorari as they do not involve jurisdictional issues. While exceptions exist, the Court found no error of substance committed by the Court of Appeals to warrant an overthrow of its assailed decision after meticulously examining the records.
Main Doctrine
The official records of the court showing the date of receipt of a decision prevail over the bare allegations of counsel regarding the date of receipt for purposes of determining the reglementary period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration. A decision becomes final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period, rendering it immutable and unalterable.