Banting v. Maglapuz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents Respondents, Spouses Jose and Raymunda Maglapuz, filed an ejectment complaint against petitioners, Spouses Jimmy Banting, Alfred Reyes, and Maxima Arceno Reyes, for their failure to pay rent for a parcel of land located at No. 405 Real Street, Talon I, Las Piñas City. The Spouses Reyes had been paying rent from 1994 to August 1997 at P3,500.00 per month, but stopped in September 1997. Despite a demand letter dated August 9, 1999, the petitioners failed to pay. The Spouses Reyes and Banting claimed lawful possession based on a lease agreement with a purported owner, Carmencita dela Cruz, and counterclaimed for damages. Procedural History The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 79, Las Piñas City, ruled in favor of the Spouses Maglapuz, ordering the petitioners to vacate, pay back rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 199, Las Piñas City. However, they failed to file their memorandum on appeal within the prescribed period, leading the RTC to dismiss their appeal on November 21, 2002. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on January 7, 2003. The petitioners then filed a Notice of Appeal, which was initially disapproved for non-payment of docket fees but later given due course. However, the RTC, in an Order dated February 4, 2003, recalled its previous orders, stating that a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) was the proper remedy, not a Notice of Appeal. The Petition The petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2003, seeking to nullify the MeTC Decision and the RTC Orders. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the MeTC decision and that the petition was filed out of time and fatally defective. The CA also noted that the petitioners' argument regarding the RTC's dismissal of their appeal for failure to file a memorandum was based on an inconsistent claim of excusable negligence versus gross negligence. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the CA's competence to review the MeTC decision, the correctness of the RTC's dismissal of their appeal, and the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC and the appropriateness of the action filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals has the competence to review or declare null and void the Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court’s outright denial of the herein petitioners’ Notice of Appeal is correct. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case despite its being meritorious, considering that the trial court, which decided the case on the merits, did not acquire jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case despite its being meritorious, considering that the proper action to be filed should have been accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, rather than a case for ejectment. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case despite the gross negligence of petitioners’ former counsel in failing to file a Memorandum of Appeal to the utter prejudice of the herein petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Review.
Ratio Decidendi
On the competence of the Court of Appeals to review the MeTC Decision: The Court held that a Petition for Review under Rule 42 is the appropriate remedy for decisions or final orders issued by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The RTC's dismissal of the appeal from the MeTC decision for failure to file a memorandum on appeal is such a final order. Therefore, the CA had appellate jurisdiction over the RTC's order, not directly over the MeTC's decision. The CA correctly stated it had no appellate jurisdiction over the MeTC decision itself. On the correctness of the RTC's denial of the Notice of Appeal: The RTC's initial denial of the Notice of Appeal was correct because the proper remedy was a Petition for Review under Rule 42, not a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41. The RTC's subsequent orders, which attempted to rectify the situation by giving due course to the Notice of Appeal and then recalling it to direct the filing of a Petition for Review, ultimately led to the correct procedural path. The CA correctly sustained the RTC's ultimate conclusion that the Petition for Review was the proper recourse. On the jurisdiction of the MeTC and the nature of the action: The Court found no merit in the argument that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction. The requirement for barangay conciliation applies only when parties reside in the same city or municipality, which was not alleged here. Furthermore, the complaint for ejectment was filed within one year from the last demand, making it properly cognizable by the MeTC as an unlawful detainer case, not an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria which are plenary actions for possession and ownership, respectively. On the nature of the action: The Court found that the appeal fell short even on the merits. On the alleged meritorious nature of the case and the negligence of counsel and timeliness of the Petition for Review: The excuse of excusable negligence for failing to file the memorandum on appeal was contradicted by the petitioners' own motion, which characterized the delay as "excusable negligence." The Court noted that counsel is expected to monitor the status of his cases and cannot solely blame the client for procedural lapses. The claim of gross negligence, which would warrant setting aside the dismissal, was not sufficiently established and was inconsistent with prior pleadings. The Court determined that the Petition for Review filed with the CA was tardy. Petitioners received notice of the RTC's denial of their motion for reconsideration on January 20, 2003. Under Neypes v. Court of Appeals, they had a fresh period of 15 days to file a petition for review, which would have been until February 5, 2003. However, they filed a Notice of Appeal on January 20, 2003, which was an erroneous mode of appeal and did not toll the period for filing a petition for review. Consequently, the Petition for Review filed on February 24, 2003, was filed out of time.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review under Rule 42 is the proper remedy from an RTC order dismissing an appeal from a MeTC decision for failure to file a memorandum on appeal. Failure to file a petition for review within the reglementary period, even if a notice of appeal was filed, renders the appeal tardy and dismissible. Excusable negligence of counsel may be considered, but the claim of gross negligence must be consistent with prior assertions.