Francisco v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a twenty-hectare parcel of land in Zamboanga City. The petitioners, the Heirs of Geminiano Francisco, claim to be the heirs of Jaime Francisco, who they allege was the original occupant and owner of the property from 1918 until his death in 1957, with continuous occupation by the heirs thereafter. They filed a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages against respondents Wellington Velasco and Dr. Emiliano Torralba. Velasco asserted ownership, claiming the petitioners' claim was extinguished by a Deed of Quitclaim and had prescribed, and that the matter was res judicata due to a prior case. Torralba stated he was merely a caretaker. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Zamboanga City, dismissed the petitioners' complaint based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the respondents, finding the evidence insufficient and the action improper, suggesting a reversion suit initiated by the Solicitor General would be the correct remedy. The petitioners appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated August 19, 2013, dismissed the petitioners' appeal for lack of merit. The petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA, in a Resolution dated August 20, 2014, denied outright for being filed beyond the reglementary period and directed the issuance of an Entry of Judgment. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolution that denied their Motion for Reconsideration and ordered an Entry of Judgment. They argued that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The core of their argument revolved around the timely filing of their Motion for Reconsideration, which they claimed was filed via courier service on October 16, 2013, within the reglementary period. However, the CA found it was filed only on December 6, 2013, and that filing via private courier is not a recognized mode of filing under the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution denying outright the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and ordering Entry of Judgment due to the alleged failure to timely file a Motion for Reconsideration. Whether filing a pleading via private courier service is a valid mode of filing under the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari for utter lack of merit. The Resolution dated August 20, 2014, issued by the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, Special Former Twenty-Second Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 02277-MIN, was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and timely filing of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found no error, much less grave abuse of discretion, committed by the CA in issuing its assailed Resolution. The CA merely followed the letter of the law when it denied the motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time and ordered the issuance of an Entry of Judgment, as a judgment becomes final and executory if no appeal or motion for reconsideration is filed within the prescribed period. The CA's action was not capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic. The Court reiterated that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within the reglementary period, which is fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final resolution, with proof of service on the adverse party, as provided by Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and Rule 7 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners received the CA Decision on September 30, 2013, giving them until October 16, 2013, to file their motion. However, the CA found that the motion was filed only on December 6, 2013, almost two months late. The burden of proof was on the petitioners to refute this finding and substantiate their claim of filing on October 16, 2013. They failed to present any evidence, other than their self-serving allegation, to prove their claim. Therefore, the CA correctly found that the motion was filed out of time. On the issue of the validity of filing via private courier: The Court stressed that under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, there are only two modes of filing a pleading: personal filing or by registered mail. Filing via private courier or courier service is not a recognized mode of filing under the Rules of Court. On this ground alone, the petition merits dismissal. The Court cannot accept the petitioners' act of filing by private courier as a valid alternative mode of filing.
Main Doctrine
Filing of pleadings via private courier or courier service is not a manner of filing allowed or recognized by the Rules of Court. A motion for reconsideration must be filed within the reglementary period, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory.