Taningco v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from Civil Case No. 1674, a Complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Recovery of Possession and Ownership. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the defendants, including the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, to vacate and turn over a specific portion of Lot 191-A to the respondents. This decision was appealed by the petitioners' predecessors, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) denied the appeal. The CA's decision became final and executory. 2. Procedural History: Following the finality of the CA's decision, respondents sought a writ of execution, which the MTC granted. In an attempt to halt the execution, Jose P. Taningco, Jr. filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, which was dismissed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. His subsequent Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Meanwhile, the petitioners, mother and brothers of Jose Jr., filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution, arguing invalid substitution and lack of due process. The MTC denied this motion, deeming it a collateral attack on the final judgment and affirming the proper substitution of the deceased defendant, Jose P. Taningco, Sr. The RTC subsequently dismissed the petitioners' Petition for Certiorari and denied their prayers for injunctive relief. The CA, in turn, dismissed the petitioners' subsequent Petition for Certiorari, finding it to be the wrong remedy and that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CA also affirmed the MTC's finding of proper substitution. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions dated May 13, 2014, and October 27, 2014. These resolutions denied their Motion to Set Aside a previous CA Resolution and Entry of Judgment, and their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioners argued that they did not receive a copy of the CA's February 28, 2013 Decision, thus preventing them from filing a timely motion for reconsideration. They also raised issues regarding the validity of the substitution of the deceased defendant and the jurisdiction of the MTC. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's findings that notice to counsel constitutes notice to the client, and that the CA's decision had become final and executory due to the petitioners' failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration. The Court also referred the matter of Atty. Dennis M. Taningco's use of disrespectful language in the petition to the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not furnishing petitioners with a copy of its Decision dated February 28, 2013, and in not resolving judiciously the principal issues posed in the petition before it. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not declaring that the impugned orders of the MTC Judge were all invalid for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, without or in excess of jurisdiction, and in a manner contrary to and in gross violation of the laws. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in not ruling that there was no valid substitution of the deceased defendant in MTC Civil Case 1674, that the MTC Kalibo is bereft of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, and that the MTC Decision dated March 7, 2005, and its writ of execution and demolition are void ab initio.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Resolutions dated May 13, 2014, and October 27, 2014, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 105017 are affirmed. The matter regarding the use of inappropriate, offensive, and disrespectful language by Atty. Dennis M. Taningco is referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notice to counsel and finality of judgment: The Court reiterated the principle that notice to counsel of record is notice to the client. In this case, Atty. Taningco, who was also a petitioner and counsel of record, was served a copy of the CA Decision on April 8, 2013, as evidenced by the Registry Return Card No. 1873, which was received by Mrs. Taningco at their recorded address. This receipt by Mrs. Taningco created a presumption of receipt by Atty. Taningco. Consequently, the 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration commenced from that date. Petitioners failed to file their motion within the said period, rendering the CA Decision final and executory. The doctrine of immutability of judgment dictates that a final and executory decision can no longer be modified or altered, except for clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, or void judgments, none of which were established by the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the failure of counsel to inform his client of an adverse judgment is not a ground for setting aside a judgment that has become final and executory. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion and invalidity of MTC orders: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. The RTC correctly noted that the petitioners' motion to quash the writ of execution constituted a collateral attack on a final and executory judgment of the CA. The MTC's denial of the motion was a ministerial duty to implement the final decision. Furthermore, the MTC properly ruled that Jose Sr. was substituted by his wife and children, including the petitioners, as evidenced by the February 6, 2002 Order, after being informed of his demise. The Court reiterated that the absence of proper substitution does not necessarily nullify the proceedings unless there is a clear violation of due process, which was not demonstrated in this case. The CA's affirmation of the RTC's findings was therefore upheld. On the alleged lack of valid substitution and jurisdiction: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that Jose Sr. was properly substituted. The MTC's February 6, 2002 Order clearly directed the substitution of Jose Sr. by his wife and children after being notified of his death. The argument that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter was also dismissed, as the MTC had already rendered a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 1674, which was affirmed by higher courts. The subsequent attempts to question the validity of the substitution and jurisdiction through a motion to quash and a petition for certiorari were deemed improper and constituted a collateral attack on a final judgment. The Court stressed that the principle of immutability of judgment bars such belated challenges to jurisdiction or substitution once a decision has attained finality.
Main Doctrine
Notice to counsel of record is notice to the client, and the failure of counsel to inform the client of an adverse judgment does not constitute a ground for setting aside a judgment that has become final and executory. A final and executory decision is immutable and unalterable, barring any modification even if it contains errors of fact or law, except for clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, or void judgments.