Sarmiento v. Zaratan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an ejectment suit filed by petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento against respondent Emerita Zaratan before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. The MeTC ruled in favor of Sarmiento, ordering Zaratan to pay monthly rentals and attorney's fees. Zaratan subsequently filed a notice of appeal. Procedural History: The appeal was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which directed Zaratan to submit a memorandum. Zaratan's counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file the memorandum, citing illness and computer issues due to a storm. The RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the memorandum within the reglementary period, noting that the motion for extension lacked a notice of hearing and was not acted upon. The RTC later denied Zaratan's motion for reconsideration and granted Sarmiento's motion for immediate execution. Aggrieved, Zaratan filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted Zaratan's Petition for Certiorari, setting aside the RTC's orders and reinstating the appeal. The appellate court found that the RTC erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality and in granting immediate execution. The Court of Appeals also denied Zaratan's subsequent motions for reconsideration and inhibition. Petitioner Sarmiento now seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the propriety of the certiorari petition, the RTC's denial of the extension motion, the applicable rules for execution, and the alleged bias of the appellate court justices.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Writ of Certiorari. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's motion for extension. Whether the RTC's dismissal of the appeal was proper. Whether the RTC's order for immediate execution was valid. Whether the Court of Appeals justices should have inhibited themselves.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA did not err in granting the writ of certiorari, reinstating respondent's appeal, and remanding the case to the RTC. The Court also affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC erred in dismissing the appeal and in granting immediate execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court held that respondent correctly filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Section 1(d) of Rule 41 explicitly states that an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal is not appealable, and the aggrieved party may file an appropriate civil action under Rule 65. Therefore, the RTC's dismissal of the appeal was a final order that completely disposed of the matter, making certiorari the proper remedy. On the alleged defect in the certification of non-forum shopping and the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the memorandum on time: The Court found the contention baseless regarding the certification, stating that the alleged defects were mere typographical errors and not so material as to justify dismissal. The Court ruled that the RTC erred in strictly applying the rule on reglementary periods without considering substantial justice. The Court emphasized that technical rules should not override substantial justice, and cases should be decided on their merits rather than on technicalities. On the RTC's dismissal of the appeal: The Court ruled that the RTC erred in strictly applying the rule on reglementary periods without considering substantial justice. While a notice of hearing is generally mandatory for motions, the Court found that procedural due process was substantially complied with. The motion for extension, though lacking a notice of hearing, was filed before the deadline, the memorandum was filed within the requested extension, and the delay was due to compelling circumstances such as illness, storm, and flood, not attributable to the respondent's fault. The Court emphasized that technical rules should not override substantial justice, and cases should be decided on their merits rather than on technicalities, especially since the memorandum was already filed when the appeal was dismissed. On the immediate execution of judgment: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the execution pending appeal was premature. Section 19 of Rule 70 requires the perfection of appeal, filing of a supersedeas bond, and periodic deposit of rentals to stay execution. The Court noted that respondent had already filed a supersedeas bond and the monthly rental. Furthermore, the RTC's order for immediate execution was based on Section 21, Rule 70, which applies to decisions of the RTC in its appellate capacity affirming a MeTC decision. In this case, the RTC dismissed the appeal on a technicality, not on the merits, making Section 21 inapplicable. On the alleged bias and partiality of the CA justices: The Court rejected the proposition, stating that mere imputation of bias is not enough without clear and convincing evidence. The fact that the CA decided the case within eight months does not indicate bias, as it is within the constitutional mandate. The Court also noted that selective discussion of issues or repeated rulings against a litigant do not amount to bias or prejudice in the absence of proof of malice.
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension of time to file a memorandum on appeal, even if lacking a notice of hearing, may be given substantial compliance and warrant suspension of the rules to serve substantial justice, especially when the motion is filed before the deadline, the memorandum is filed within the requested extension, and the delay is due to compelling circumstances not attributable to the party's fault, provided that the other party is not unjustly prejudiced and the motion is not frivolous or dilatory.