Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Andy Quelnan claimed to have purchased a condominium unit in 1989 from respondents VHF Philippines, Inc. and its President, Vicente Tan, for which he allegedly overpaid P270,000.00. He further claimed that this overpayment was to be debited from the purchase price of another unit, Unit 20-G, which he agreed to buy for P3,250,000.00. Petitioner took possession of Unit 20-G and made several payments. However, when he offered to settle the remaining balance in May 1991, respondents informed him that the unit was mortgaged and charged him interest and penalties. Conversely, VHF Philippines, Inc. asserted that Unit 20-G was leased to petitioner at a monthly rental of P25,500.00 plus P1,500.00 for a parking space, and that petitioner failed to pay the rentals, leading to an ejectment complaint. 2. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ordered petitioner's ejectment in a November 23, 1992 decision, which became final and executory as petitioner did not appeal. Nearly two years later, on October 7, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for rescission and damages against respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. After several postponements to allow for amicable settlement, the pre-trial was set for January 17, 1997. Petitioner and his counsel failed to appear, leading the RTC to dismiss the complaint and declare petitioner non-suited. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion to set aside the dismissal, citing excusable negligence for overlooking the pre-trial date, which was denied. Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion reiterating the grounds, which was also denied. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on March 20, 1997, appealing the denial of his Omnibus Motion. The RTC initially directed the elevation of the records but later set aside its order, deeming the appeal filed out of time. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to compel the RTC to reinstate its order giving due course to the appeal. The CA denied the petition, treating it as a petition for certiorari, ruling that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was not appealable and that the order of dismissal had become final. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that mandamus was the proper remedy and that his Notice of Appeal was seasonably filed. He contends that the denial of his Omnibus Motion, which sought reconsideration of the dismissal order, was effectively an appeal of the dismissal itself, and that the order denying reconsideration of a dismissal order is a final, not an interlocutory, order and thus appealable. Petitioner further argues that the trial court's dismissal was based on an excusable oversight by his counsel. The Supreme Court, however, found that the failure to appear at the mandatory pre-trial due to counsel's alleged oversight amounted to carelessness, not excusable negligence. The Court also affirmed the CA's ruling that an order denying a motion for reconsideration of a dismissal order is not directly appealable, and that the appeal should have been from the dismissal order itself, which had become final due to the failure to timely appeal it.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus was the proper remedy to compel the trial court to give due course to the notice of appeal, and whether the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the order denying the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal is appealable. On the merits of the excusable negligence claim.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the order denying the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was not appealable, and consequently, the order of dismissal had become final and executory. The Court found that the notice of appeal was timely filed, but the issue of appealability of the denial of the motion for reconsideration was the primary ground for dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether mandamus was the proper remedy and the timeliness of the notice of appeal: The Court reiterated that mandamus will lie to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one, and requires a clear and certain right. The timeliness of the filing of a notice of appeal determines whether giving due course is ministerial. The Court found that petitioner's counsel received the January 17, 1997 Order of dismissal on February 12, 1997. The filing of an Omnibus Motion on February 24, 1997, interrupted the 15-day appeal period. The period began to run again upon receipt of the denial of the Omnibus Motion on March 19, 1997. The Notice of Appeal was filed on March 20, 1997, which was within the remaining 13 days of the reglementary period, thus, it was timely filed. However, this finding did not cure the procedural defect regarding the appealability of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. On whether the order denying the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal is appealable: The Court clarified that while Rule 37, Section 9 and Rule 41, Section 1(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure state that an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable, this proscription refers to interlocutory orders. The denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is a final order because it puts an end to the particular matter and leaves nothing for the trial court to do but execute the order. Therefore, it is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself. The Court distinguished this from the denial of a motion to dismiss an action, which is interlocutory. The Court noted that the notice of appeal referred to the order denying the motion for reconsideration, which should be deemed to refer to the order of dismissal. On the merits of the excusable negligence claim: The Court found that the alleged failure of petitioner's counsel to record the scheduled pre-trial in his diary did not constitute excusable negligence. It was characterized as carelessness and inattention, not an unavoidable hindrance or accident. The Court emphasized that pre-trial is mandatory and the trial court has the discretion to declare a party non-suited, and absent grave abuse of discretion, appellate courts will not interfere.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is a final order, not an interlocutory one, and is therefore appealable. The proscription against appealing an order denying a motion for reconsideration applies only to interlocutory orders.