Nabua v. Lu Ym
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case stems from a dispute over the estate of Cayetano Ludo, who co-founded Ludo and Lu Ym Corporation, and had ten children with his common-law wife, Gertrudes Nabua. The respondent, Douglas Lu Ym (also known as Crispin N. Lu), allegedly took an active role in managing Cayetano's properties in the 1970s, and as Cayetano's health declined, his shares were transferred to the respondent. Following Cayetano's death, the respondent purportedly supervised the execution of a simulated last will and testament to evade inheritance taxes, which the petitioners, believing it was for the family's benefit, did not oppose during probate. The respondent managed 50% of Gertrudes Nabua's share in Cayetano's estate and also managed and held in trust the other 50% for the children, but the petitioners claim the respondent abandoned his mother and ceased providing support, prompting them to demand an accounting of the properties, which was ignored. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a complaint for accounting with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which denied the respondent's omnibus motion to dismiss and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) also denied his petition to reverse the RTC's order, leading the respondent to appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 161309), which remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings to resolve the motion to dismiss anew. Meanwhile, the respondent was declared in default by the RTC for failing to file an answer, allowing the petitioners to present evidence ex parte, and the RTC subsequently rendered a decision ordering the respondent to account for the properties. The respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing the Supreme Court's previous ruling invalidated the RTC decision, but the RTC denied this motion, prompting the respondent to appeal this denial to the CA. The petitioners moved to dismiss this appeal and for the issuance of a writ of execution, arguing the appeal was not from the main decision, but the RTC transmitted the records to the CA, leaving it to the higher court to determine the timeliness of the appeal, and the CA ultimately denied the petitioners' motions to dismiss the appeal and to issue a writ of execution. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review under Rule 45 of the Supreme Court's Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the Court of Appeals' resolution that denied their motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal and their motion to order the trial court to issue a writ of execution. The petitioners argue that the CA gravely erred in allowing the respondent to appeal an issue already resolved with finality by the Supreme Court in a prior contempt case (G.R. No. 169476, Lu Ym v. Mahinay), and contend that the CA should have dismissed the appeal because the respondent's notice of appeal was directed at an order denying a motion for reconsideration, not the main decision. The Supreme Court, however, treated the petition as an original action for certiorari under Rule 65, noting that an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself and that the CA's denial of the motion to dismiss was not an interlocutory order. The Court found that the prior contempt case did not rule on the validity of the RTC decision but merely noted that an appeal was pending before the CA, and consequently denied the petition but ordered the CA to resolve the respondent's appeal with deliberate dispatch.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA gravely erred in allowing the respondent to appeal before it on an issue which has already been resolved with finality by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 169476 (Lu Ym v. Mahinay). Whether the CA gravely erred or abused its discretion in allowing respondent’s appeal from an order of dismissal of his motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition but ordered the Court of Appeals to resolve respondent's appeal with deliberate dispatch. The Court treated the petition as an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 in the interest of substantial justice, to resolve whether the CA gravely erred or abused its discretion in allowing respondent's appeal from an order denying his motion for reconsideration. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA gravely erred in allowing the respondent to appeal an issue already resolved by the Supreme Court: The Court ruled in the negative. The Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 169476 (Lu Ym v. Mahinay) did not rule on the validity of the RTC decision dated March 16, 2005, but rather noted that an appeal was pending before the CA where the issue should be properly addressed. The contempt case only resolved whether the respondents were guilty of indirect contempt, not the merits of the main case. The Court explicitly stated that the assailed March 16, 2005 decision of the trial court was on appeal before the Court of Appeals, and it was before the latter court where the issue of the nullification of the trial court's decision should be addressed. Therefore, the petitioners' reliance on the contempt proceeding's pronouncement was misplaced as it did not resolve the validity of the RTC decision. On the procedural issue of appealing an order denying a motion for reconsideration: The Court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself. Such denial is considered a final order, not an interlocutory one, as it puts an end to a particular matter. The Court cited Apuyan v. Haldeman to support the principle that an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration should be deemed to refer to the decision of the trial court which was the subject of the motion. The 15-day period to file an appeal is reckoned from the date of receipt of the decision, and this period is interrupted by the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration. In this case, respondent filed his motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, and his subsequent notice of appeal was filed within the remaining days of the original appeal period, thus, the appeal was filed on time. The Court also noted that when respondent was declared in default, his proper remedy was to file a motion to set aside the order of default, which he failed to do. A party declared in default loses his standing in court but retains the right to appeal the judgment by default.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal itself, and the period to appeal is reckoned from the receipt of the main decision, interrupted by the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration.