Borlongan v. Buenaventura
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teodoro C. Borlongan, former president of Urban Bank Inc. (UBI), filed a complaint against Rafael B. Buenaventura, Governor of the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas (BSP), and Norberto C. Nazareno, President of Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Borlongan alleged that on April 26, 2000, the Monetary Board ordered the closure of UBI and appointed PDIC as receiver. He claimed that respondents unduly preferred Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) by allowing it to collect on UBI's assigned National Food Authority (NFA) promissory notes, totaling P562,500,000.00, in violation of Sections 16 and 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act). Procedural History: The complaint spawned two proceedings: a criminal case (OMB-0-01-0504) and an administrative case (OMB-ADM-0327). The Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for lack of probable cause on July 2, 2002. In the administrative case, the Ombudsman initially found Nazareno guilty of conduct prejudicial to the service and suspended him, but later modified this to simple misconduct with a one-month suspension. Subsequently, on August 21, 2002, the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint against Nazareno and adopted the ruling from the criminal case dismissal. Petitioner sought relief via certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which denied his petition on August 31, 2004, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. A motion for reconsideration was denied on February 21, 2005. The Petition: Petitioner filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court and paid the required fees. However, petitioner passed away on April 11, 2005, before filing the petition. His counsel filed the petition on April 18, 2005, with notice of his client's death. The Supreme Court noted that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and must be perfected in accordance with law. It held that the petition was a mere scrap of paper as the attorney-client relationship terminated upon the client's death, rendering the counsel without authority to represent a deceased client. Furthermore, the Court invoked the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, stating that the issues raised had already been resolved in a prior case (G.R. No. 159754) which found that the assignment of NFA notes to LBP was completed before UBI's closure, thus no undue preference was given and no violation of the New Central Bank Act occurred.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner's counsel was able to perfect an appeal despite the client's death before the filing of the petition. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for certiorari; and whether the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment applies.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The appeal was not perfected.
Ratio Decidendi
On the perfection of appeal: The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law. Perfection of an appeal by way of a petition for review is conditioned upon the timely filing of the petition and payment of docket fees. In this case, while the docket fees were paid, the petitioner died before the petition could be filed. The petition filed by the counsel after the client's death is considered a mere scrap of paper as the attorney-client relationship is terminated upon the client's death. A deceased client cannot be represented by an attorney. Therefore, the appeal was not perfected. On the merits (conclusiveness of judgment): Even if the appeal were perfected, it would not prosper due to the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. The issues raised in the administrative complaint, specifically the alleged violation of Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act and undue preference given to LBP, were already passed upon and resolved in a prior case, Borlongan v. The Office of the Ombudsman. In that case, it was held that the assignment of the NFA notes to LBP was completed on March 29, 2000, before UBI's closure on April 26, 2000, and that LBP's right to collect arose from a Deed of Assignment notarized on March 29, 2000. The "Confirmation of Outright Purchase of Government Securities" was not the document establishing LBP's rights. The findings in the prior case, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on the present case, as both proceedings require the same quantum of evidence and involve the same factual backdrop.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional requirement that must be strictly complied with. Failure to file the petition and pay the docket fees within the reglementary period, or within the granted extension, results in the loss of the right to appeal. Furthermore, the principle of conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of issues already passed upon and determined in a prior case between the same parties, provided the quantum of evidence required is the same.