Perez v. Hermano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a civil case filed by petitioners (Sps. Victor & Milagros Perez and Cristina Agraviador Aviso) against Zescon Land, Inc., its President Zenie Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele, and respondent Antonio Hermano. The case sought enforcement of a contract to sell, annulment of mortgage contracts with respondent Hermano, and damages. Petitioners alleged they were misled into mortgaging properties they had agreed to sell to Zescon Land, Inc., and that respondent Hermano, though facilitating the release of titles, had not provided them with the proceeds of the mortgages, while simultaneously initiating foreclosure proceedings. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed their civil case on April 27, 1998. Respondent Hermano filed an Answer with Counterclaim on May 15, 1998, and later a motion to dismiss or sever the case against him on January 17, 2000. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted this motion on February 28, 2000, finding a misjoinder of causes of action and parties, and ordering that any claims against Hermano be pursued in his separate judicial foreclosure case. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on May 25, 2000. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 17, 2000, challenging the RTC's dismissal orders. The CA dismissed the petition on October 19, 2000, for being filed out of time, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2001. 3. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the CA's resolutions dismissing the petitioners' original certiorari petition. The core issue is whether the CA erred in ruling that the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioners argue that under the amended Section 4 of Rule 65 (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC), their petition, filed on August 17, 2000, was within the 60-day period, counting from their receipt of the denial of their motion for reconsideration on June 18, 2000. They contend that the CA's calculation of 63 days was erroneous. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners, finding that the amended rule, being procedural and curative, applied retroactively and granted a fresh 60-day period from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration, making their filing timely. The Court then proceeded to resolve the substantive issue of whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing respondent Hermano from the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondent Antonio Hermano on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and/or parties.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, granted the petition for certiorari, and annulled and set aside the Orders of the Regional Trial Court. The RTC was ordered to reinstate respondent Antonio Hermano as a defendant in the civil case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the petition was filed within the reglementary period. It clarified that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, provides a fresh period of sixty (60) days from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari. The amendment was deemed curative and retroactive. Petitioners received the denial of their motion for reconsideration on June 18, 2000, and filed their petition on August 17, 2000, which is exactly sixty (60) days, thus complying with the rule. The Court found the CA's computation and dismissal to be reversible error. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against respondent Hermano: The Court found that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on misjoinder of causes of action and the pendency of a separate foreclosure case filed by Hermano. However, the Court emphasized that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal under Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court; a misjoined cause of action may be severed and proceeded with separately. Furthermore, the Court found that the causes of action against Zescon Land, Inc. and respondent Hermano arose from a series of transactions involving the same properties and presented common questions of fact and law, such as whether Zescon misled petitioners into mortgaging their properties to Hermano and the validity of the contracts. Therefore, joinder was permissible, and severing Hermano from the complaint was an abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed within the fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, is considered filed within the reglementary period. Furthermore, misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal; a misjoined cause of action may be severed and proceeded with separately.