Marcos v. Prieto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Marcos V. Prieto and Susan M. Prieto filed a complaint against Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) and Spouses Antonio and Monette Prieto, seeking the nullity of several real estate mortgage contracts. The Prietos alleged that they had authorized Antonio Prieto via a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to borrow money from FEBTC, using their property as collateral. Antonio Prieto, however, obtained loans totaling P5,000,000.00 in his and his wife's names, secured by mortgages on the Prietos' property. When Antonio and Monette Prieto failed to pay these loans, FEBTC initiated foreclosure proceedings. The Prietos argued that the loans and mortgages were null and void ab initio because they were incurred solely by the defendant spouses for their own benefit, not for the principals, Marcos and Susan Prieto. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) but later denied the application for a preliminary injunction. On July 31, 2001, the RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that Marcos Prieto was liable because he had ratified the actions of his agent, Antonio Prieto, through a letter of acknowledgment dated September 12, 1996. Marcos Prieto received this decision on August 28, 2001, and filed a motion for reconsideration on September 12, 2001. The RTC denied this motion on November 19, 2001. Marcos Prieto received the denial on November 21, 2001, but filed his notice of appeal only on November 26, 2001, which was four days beyond the reglementary period. The RTC denied due course to the appeal, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Marcos Prieto then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in disallowing his appeal, claiming it was only two days late and that the delay was excusable due to personal distress. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on April 24, 2002, holding that the appeal was not perfected on time and that the RTC did not err. The CA subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration on April 9, 2003. The Petition: Petitioner Marcos Prieto seeks review of the Court of Appeals' resolution through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He raises two main arguments: first, that the CA's resolution denying his motion for reconsideration was void because one of the justices did not sign it, violating the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals; and second, that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari, as his notice of appeal was only two days late and the delay should have been considered excusable negligence. He also argues that the underlying mortgage contracts were void and that he had not ratified them. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in these arguments, affirming the CA's dismissal. The Court noted that all CA justices had signed the resolution and that the petitioner's failure to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period, despite his awareness of the delay, was fatal to his case. Furthermore, the Court found that Marcos Prieto had indeed ratified the mortgage contracts through his express written acknowledgment, making him liable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) resolution was void for lack of unanimity. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Marcos, considering the timeliness of the notice of appeal. Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was excusable. Whether Marcos ratified the real estate mortgage contracts executed by Antonio Prieto.
Ruling
The Supreme Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Court of Appeals and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the CA resolution's validity: The Court found no basis for Marcos' submission that the CA resolution was void for lack of unanimity. Contrary to his claim, Associate Justice Guariña III expressly concurred in the resolution, as evidenced by his signature on the copy attached to the petition. The Court noted that Marcos could not have missed the signature, which prominently appeared on the resolution. Therefore, the CA resolution was validly issued by a unanimous division. On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari and perfection of the appeal: The Court sustained the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari. Marcos himself conceded that his notice of appeal was tardy by two days, acknowledging that he had lost his right to appeal the RTC's decision. A petition for certiorari is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment, and cannot be used to substitute for a lost appeal. The CA correctly pointed out that the notice of appeal was filed four days beyond the reglementary period, not two days as Marcos claimed in his petition for certiorari. Furthermore, Marcos failed to avail himself of other remedies like a petition for relief of judgment. The Court reiterated that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Marcos received the denial of his motion for reconsideration on November 21, 2001, leaving him with only one day to perfect his appeal. However, he filed his notice of appeal on November 26, 2001, four days beyond the reglementary period. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the appeal. On the excusability of the delay: His claim of excusable neglect due to emotional distress from medical procedures was unsupported and uncorroborated. The notice of appeal itself did not mention the embryo transplant and misleadingly stated the date of receipt of the decision, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. On the ratification of the mortgage contracts: The Court found that Marcos was bound by the mortgage contracts. Even if Antonio had exceeded his authority under the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) by obtaining loans and executing mortgages in his own name, Marcos ratified these acts. Under Article 1898 of the Civil Code, acts of an agent beyond his authority bind the principal if ratified. Marcos, a lawyer, executed a letter of acknowledgment on September 12, 1996, confirming his understanding that his property was offered as collateral for the Spouses Prieto's loan with his consent and agreeing to all terms and conditions of the mortgage. This letter constituted express ratification, making him liable. The Court rejected Marcos' argument that the letter was a mere "contract of adhesion" and a "scrap of paper," emphasizing that as a lawyer, he understood its import and consequences, and that contracts of adhesion are not per se void.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply therewith renders the judgment final and executory, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the judgment. A petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal.