Fajardo v. Comandante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Rufina Fajardo and her husband, Victor Fajardo, against Alberto Comandante and the Register of Deeds of Iba, Zambales. The Fajardos sought to annul a deed of sale, alleging their signatures were forged, and to cancel the Transfer Certificate of Title issued to Alberto Comandante based on this deed. Comandante denied the allegations, asserting the sale was regular and the property was validly transferred to him. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied Comandante's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. However, upon reconsideration and noting the Fajardos' lack of opposition, the RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Subsequent motions by both parties led to further orders, including an initial denial of Comandante's request to dismiss with prejudice, followed by an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice after the Fajardos and their counsel showed continued lack of interest. The Fajardos then filed a motion to treat Comandante's motion for dismissal with prejudice as a scrap of paper due to alleged non-compliance with notice rules, which the RTC denied. The Fajardos' subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, as they had failed to appeal the order of dismissal with prejudice. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was also dismissed. The Petition: The petitioners, Rufina Fajardo and others, represented by their attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. They sought to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by not treating respondent Alberto Comandante's motion for reconsideration (which sought to change the dismissal from "without prejudice" to "with prejudice") as a mere scrap of paper due to its alleged non-compliance with the three-day notice rule. Consequently, they argued that the RTC's subsequent order dismissing their case with prejudice should be set aside.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in not treating respondent Alberto Comandante's April 24, 2006 motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper for non-compliance with the three-day notice rule. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in not setting aside, as a consequence, the order that dismissed the petitioners' case 'with' prejudice.
Ruling
The Court denies the petition and affirms the Court of Appeals' decision. The dismissal of the complaint with prejudice has become final and executory and can no longer be modified or collaterally attacked.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treating Alberto's motion as a scrap of paper: The Court acknowledged that Alberto's motion for reconsideration dated April 24, 2006, was indeed defective for non-compliance with the three-day notice rule. Alberto set the motion for hearing on April 27, 2006, but served a copy on the Fajardos' counsel by registered mail, which was received only on April 28, 2006, after the scheduled hearing. However, the Court noted that despite receiving this defective motion on April 28, 2006, the Fajardos and their counsel did nothing to oppose it or inquire about its status. They remained passive even as the RTC took about two weeks to act on the motion, eventually granting it on May 11, 2006, and dismissing the case with prejudice. This inaction on the part of the petitioners, despite having ample time and opportunity to respond to a motion that directly affected their case, was a significant factor in the Court's decision. On the issue of setting aside the dismissal with prejudice: The Court emphasized that the RTC's Order dated May 11, 2006, which dismissed the complaint with prejudice, was a final order. As a final order, the Fajardos' sole remedy was to file either a motion for its reconsideration or a notice of appeal within the reglementary period to have any alleged error rectified. However, the Fajardos failed to do so. Instead, they filed a motion on September 11, 2006, four months after the dismissal order, seeking to treat Alberto's motion as a scrap of paper. The Court viewed this belated motion as a disguised motion for reconsideration filed out of time. Since the period for appeal or reconsideration had lapsed, the May 11, 2006 Order became final and executory. A final and executory order can no longer be modified in any respect, even if it contains erroneous conclusions of fact or law. Therefore, it could not be collaterally attacked through the Fajardos' "artful motion" which, in truth, sought the nullification of the final order.
Main Doctrine
A final and executory order, even if erroneous, can no longer be modified and cannot be collaterally attacked. The proper remedy for an erroneous final order is a motion for reconsideration or an appeal within the reglementary period.