Albor v. Macasil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Editha B. Albor was the agricultural lessee of a portion of Lot 2429. Respondents Nerva Macasil and Norma Beluso purchased this lot from the heirs of the registered owner. Editha asserted her right to redeem the property under Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, claiming she was not properly notified of the sale and that the redemption period had not commenced due to the unregistered deed of sale. She sought to redeem the lot for P60,000.00. Respondents countered that Editha was aware of the sale and her right of preemption, and that she was duly notified in writing. They also claimed unpaid rentals and sought termination of the leasehold agreement. Procedural History: The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled that Editha was not properly notified of the sale, thus her right of redemption had not prescribed. However, the PARAD dismissed her complaint for redemption because she only consigned P216,000.00, falling short of the P600,000.00 purchase price stated in the deed of sale. Editha appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which affirmed the PARAD's decision. Editha then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking an extension of time to file. The CA dismissed her petition for review, citing that it was filed out of time, particularly due to the denial of her second motion for extension. The Petition: Editha B. Albor filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's resolutions that dismissed her petition for review. She argued that the CA erred in strictly applying procedural rules and that there was a compelling reason for her second motion for extension of time, namely the sudden withdrawal of her counsel and the need for her new counsel to study the case. The Supreme Court, however, found that Editha availed of the wrong mode of appeal, as a petition for review under Rule 45 was the proper remedy. Furthermore, the Court found no compelling reason to grant a second extension, citing previous jurisprudence where similar circumstances did not warrant leniency. The Court also noted that even on the merits, Editha's claim for redemption failed due to the insufficient amount consigned.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Editha's petition for review for having been filed out of time. Whether Editha availed of the correct mode of appeal before the Supreme Court. Whether there was a compelling reason to grant a second extension of time to file the petition for review before the Court of Appeals. Whether Editha's redemption of the landholding was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It affirmed the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for review before the CA: Even if the Court looked beyond the procedural misstep, the petition would still fail. The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and requires strict compliance with the rules, including perfection within the reglementary period. Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court allows an additional period of fifteen (15) days only upon proper motion and payment of docket fees, and a further extension is granted only for the 'most compelling reason' and not exceeding fifteen (15) days. The CA did not find Editha's reason for a second extension (withdrawal of counsel and need for new counsel to study the case) to be a 'most compelling reason.' The Court agreed, noting that Editha herself caused her predicament by changing counsel late in the process, similar to the situation in Spouses Jesus Dycoco v. CA. The Court also cited Cesar Naguit v. San Miguel Corp., stating that workload and lawyer resignation are insufficient reasons to relax procedural rules, and litigants must monitor their cases. On the proper mode of appeal: The Court held that Editha availed of the wrong mode of appeal by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Decisions and final orders of the Court of Appeals are appealable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process. A Rule 65 petition is a special civil action of last resort, available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and it is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, not mere errors of procedure or judgment. Since the CA resolutions were final and appealable judgments, Editha should have filed a Rule 45 petition. Her failure to do so and instead filing a Rule 65 petition meant she lost the remedy of appeal through her own fault or negligence. On the compelling reason for a second extension: This is addressed in the first ratio point regarding the timeliness of the petition for review before the CA. On the validity of the redemption: The Court found that Editha's redemption was invalid on substantive grounds. Both the PARAD and DARAB found that Editha only consigned ₱216,000.00 as the redemption price. The deed of sale, which Editha herself obtained, stated the purchase price was ₱600,000.00. The administrative tribunals correctly held that absent contrary evidence, this was the actual purchase price. The Court reiterated the principle that the full amount of the redemption price must be consigned to demonstrate seriousness and good faith, and to avoid prolonged uncertainty. Editha's consignment of a lesser amount rendered her offer to redeem ineffectual.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45, especially when the latter remedy is available but was lost through the litigant's fault or negligence. Furthermore, the grant of a second extension of time to file a petition for review is discretionary and requires a 'most compelling reason,' which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.