Bernardo v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Iluminada C. Bernardo (Bernardo) filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus for her minor granddaughter, Stephanie Verniese Soriano (Stephanie), who was under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Bernardo alleged that Stephanie was being deprived of liberty and that the DSWD refused to release her to Bernardo's custody. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) converted the Habeas Corpus petition into a custody case. Respondent Ana Marie B. Soriano (Soriano), Stephanie's surviving parent, intervened, seeking custody. The RTC, in a Decision dated August 5, 2010, upheld Soriano's parental authority but granted temporary custody to Bernardo for the school year 2009-2010, for the best interest of the minor. Bernardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging Soriano's unfitness, which the RTC denied on August 31, 2010. On the same day, Soriano filed a Comment (With Motion for Partial Reconsideration) dated August 27, 2010, asserting her immediate right to custody. Bernardo filed a Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2010. However, the RTC, in an Order dated September 9, 2010, denied due course to Bernardo's Notice of Appeal, reasoning that the August 5, 2010 Decision had not yet attained finality due to Soriano's pending Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The RTC subsequently issued an Order dated October 22, 2010, granting Soriano's partial reconsideration and allowing her immediate custody of Stephanie. Bernardo's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of the September 9 and October 22, 2010 Orders was denied on January 31, 2011. Bernardo then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: Bernardo assailed the CA's Decision and Resolution, which denied her Certiorari Petition. The CA held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Bernardo's Notice of Appeal because Soriano's timely filed Motion for Partial Reconsideration rendered the RTC's August 5, 2010 Decision not yet appealable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Bernardo's Petition for Certiorari, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Bernardo's Notice of Appeal due to the pendency of Soriano's Motion for Partial Reconsideration; and whether the pendency of Soriano's Motion for Partial Reconsideration rendered the RTC's Decision dated August 5, 2010, an interlocutory order, thus precluding Bernardo from filing a Notice of Appeal; and whether other remedies were available to Bernardo.
Ruling
The Court resolved to deny the petition. The Decision dated August 11, 2011, and Resolution dated January 6, 2012, rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118506, were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA erred in denying Bernardo's Certiorari Petition and whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Bernardo's Notice of Appeal; and whether the pendency of Soriano's Motion for Partial Reconsideration rendered the RTC's Decision an interlocutory order; and on the availability of other remedies: The Court held that while the RTC erred in denying due course to Bernardo's Notice of Appeal, this procedural error did not warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The extraordinary writ of certiorari will not be issued to cure mere errors in proceedings or erroneous conclusions of law or fact. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The RTC's denial, though erroneous, was motivated by practicality and a desire to avoid multiplicity of appeals, not by caprice. The Court found the RTC and CA's position erroneous. The RTC's Decision dated August 5, 2010, was a judgment on the merits, fully disposing of the custody case. The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by one party does not interrupt the other party's period of appeal. Each party has a different period within which to appeal, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration by one party does not affect the other party's period of appeal. Therefore, with Bernardo's own Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, she had 15 days to file a Notice of Appeal, regardless of Soriano's pending motion. The Court emphasized that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available. The RTC's denial of due course to Bernardo's Notice of Appeal did not completely preclude her from appealing. The RTC's subsequent Order dated October 22, 2010, granting Soriano's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, modified the original decision. Bernardo could have filed a new Notice of Appeal to assail this modified decision. Her filing of a Motion for Reconsideration on November 22, 2010, and subsequently filing the Certiorari Petition on March 15, 2011, indicated that an adequate remedy of appeal was available to her. She chose to focus on the alleged grave abuse of discretion instead of pursuing the ordinary remedy of appeal.
Main Doctrine
The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by one party does not interrupt the other party's period of appeal. A party's right to appeal is not contingent on the opposing party's motion for reconsideration.