Madarang v. Morales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for judicial foreclosure filed by Spouses Jesus D. Morales and Carolina N. Morales against Spouses Nicanor and Luciana Bartolome, and subsequently against their heirs Juliet Vitug Madarang, Romeo Bartolome, Rodolfo Bartolome, and Ruby Anne Bartolome. The Spouses Morales alleged that the Spouses Bartolome had obtained a loan of P500,000.00 secured by a mortgage on a property in Bago Bantay, Quezon City. The loan was not fully repaid, leading to the foreclosure action. The heirs contested the authenticity of the mortgage and argued that the case had been previously dismissed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City rendered a decision on December 22, 2009, ordering the defendants to pay the Spouses Morales P500,000.00 with interest. The defendants received the decision on January 29, 2010, and filed a motion for reconsideration and an amended motion, which the RTC denied on May 25, 2010, finding them pro forma. The defendants received this order on June 24, 2010. Their subsequent notice of appeal, filed on August 11, 2010, was denied by the RTC as it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The defendants then filed a petition for relief from judgment on September 24, 2010, attributing their counsel's failure to file the appeal on time to his advanced age. The RTC denied this petition on April 27, 2011, for being filed out of time. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's order denying the petition for relief. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration of its dismissal on November 10, 2011. The Petition: The petitioners, Juliet Vitug Madarang and Romeo Bartolome (represented by Rodolfo and Ruby Anne Bartolome), filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that they were not required to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their petition for relief from judgment because the issues raised were pure questions of law. They also contend that the period to file an appeal should be counted from their personal receipt of the decision, not from their counsel's receipt. The respondents, Spouses Morales, maintain that the RTC and CA correctly dismissed the case due to the petitioners' procedural missteps, including the failure to file a timely appeal and the omission of a motion for reconsideration before filing a certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of petitioners' former counsel to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period constitutes excusable negligence. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioners' petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the petition for relief from judgment. Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary periods prescribed by Rule 38, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' resolutions dated July 27, 2011, and November 10, 2011, are affirmed. The Regional Trial Court's decision dated December 22, 2009, is declared final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the failure of petitioners' former counsel to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period is excusable negligence: The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove excusable negligence. The argument that their 80-year-old lawyer's failure to appeal was due to his age was deemed a prejudicial stereotype and an unwarranted assumption of incompetence. The Court emphasized that for negligence to be excusable, it must be so gross that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against it. Since this was not shown, the petitioners were bound by their counsel's negligence. The notice of appeal was filed on August 11, 2010, long after the July 9, 2010 deadline, which was correctly denied by the RTC. On whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court agreed with the CA that a motion for reconsideration is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that must be filed before resorting to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This requirement allows the court that rendered the assailed order an opportunity to correct its errors. The petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their petition for relief from judgment. Furthermore, the issues raised in the petition for relief (authenticity of signatures and excusable negligence of counsel) were questions of fact, not pure questions of law, thus precluding the exception where a motion for reconsideration is not required before filing a certiorari petition. On the timeliness of the petition for relief from judgment: The Court affirmed that the petition for relief from judgment was filed out of time. While the RTC erred in counting the 60-day period from the finality of the decision instead of from the date of knowledge, the six-month period from entry of judgment was still exceeded. The defendants received the RTC decision on January 29, 2010. Their motion for reconsideration was pro forma and did not toll the appeal period. Thus, the decision became final 15 days after January 29, 2010, or on February 13, 2010. The six-month period to file a petition for relief from judgment expired on August 12, 2010. The petition was filed on September 24, 2010, beyond the prescribed period. The Court reiterated that the double period under Rule 38, Section 3, is jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with, as a petition for relief is an exception to the immutability of final judgments.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary periods prescribed by Rule 38, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which are 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and six months from its entry. Failure to comply with these periods is jurisdictional and warrants outright dismissal. Furthermore, the negligence of counsel must be proven to be excusable, meaning it could not have been prevented by ordinary diligence and prudence; mere old age is not sufficient to establish excusable negligence. Lastly, a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari, unless the issues raised are purely questions of law.