Lasam v. Philippine National Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Dr. Fe Lasam filed a Complaint for Annulment of Mortgage against the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Civil Case No. 6778. The case was dismissed due to the failure of her former counsel to appear at a hearing on February 23, 2010, despite Dr. Lasam's presence. 2. Procedural History: Following the dismissal, Dr. Lasam's former counsel filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion, which was denied for being untimely. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. A Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed, and a subsequent petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court (SC) was also denied and became final and executory. Dr. Lasam then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging gross negligence by her former counsel. The RTC dismissed this petition, ruling it was filed beyond the reglementary periods. The RTC's dismissal and subsequent denial of a motion for reconsideration are the subject of the current petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the RTC's orders dismissing Dr. Lasam's petition for relief and denying her motion for reconsideration. Dr. Lasam argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing her petition for relief, contending that the gross negligence of her former counsel should be an exception to the rule that client is bound by counsel's actions. The petition also challenges the RTC's determination of the reglementary periods for filing the petition for relief.
Issue(s)
WHETHER THE RTC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED OUTRIGHT LASAM'S PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, ORDER OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND DENIED HER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. WHETHER THE PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WAS FILED WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIODS PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES OF COURT.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for utter lack of merit. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition for relief outright.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the dismissal of the petition for relief: The Supreme Court held that direct recourse to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was improperly resorted to, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts. Such direct invocation should only be allowed when there are special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, which were absent in this case. Furthermore, even if the Court gave due course, the petition would still be dismissed on substantive grounds. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion because the petition for relief was filed out of time. A petition for relief is an equitable remedy that requires strict compliance with reglementary periods, which are jurisdictional. The RTC correctly ruled that the 60-day period commenced not from Lasam's belated knowledge of finality, but from her knowledge of the April 29, 2010 Order denying reconsideration, or at the latest, from her signing of the verification for the CA petition on July 23, 2010. The petition for relief filed on January 22, 2013, was therefore filed way beyond the 60-day period and the six-month period from the entry of the order, which was effectively May 3, 2012. On the timeliness of the petition for relief: The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within two periods: (1) 60 days from knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside, and (2) six months from the entry of such judgment, order, or proceeding. These two periods must concur and are strictly observed, being jurisdictional. The Court emphasized that for the 60-day period, knowledge of the finality of the judgment or order is irrelevant; it should be reckoned from the time the aggrieved party has knowledge of the judgment or order itself. In this case, Lasam's knowledge of the February 23, 2010 Order could be traced to February 23, 2010, when she was present, or at the latest, July 23, 2010, when she signed the verification for the CA petition, which itself assailed the February 23, 2010 Order. The petition for relief filed on January 22, 2013, was therefore filed almost three years from her knowledge of the order. Moreover, the six-month period from the entry of the order (effectively May 3, 2012) was also missed, as the petition was filed more than eight months later. Thus, the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for being filed out of time, having lost jurisdiction to entertain it.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court must be filed within the reglementary periods of 60 days from knowledge of the judgment or order and six months from its entry, and these periods must concur and are strictly observed as they are jurisdictional. Knowledge of the finality of the judgment or order is irrelevant for purposes of the 60-day period.