Abutin v. San Juan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Corazon M. San Juan, who lived with Purita Dayao and Purita's daughter, Filipina D. Abutin, for 48 years, passed away on March 23, 2008, without surviving ascendants or descendants. She left behind a house and lot in Tondo, Manila. On July 7, 2008, Purita and Filipina filed a petition for the probate of three holographic wills purportedly executed by Corazon, which bequeathed all her properties to them. Corazon's sister, Julita San Juan, and niece, Josephine San Juan, opposed the petition. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), through Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso, initially admitted two of the holographic wills to probate on December 28, 2015. However, after the respondents' counsel claimed non-receipt of the order and later withdrew his appearance, the RTC, in an Order dated November 25, 2016, set aside its previous order and denied probate. Filipina appealed this decision, but the RTC dismissed her appeal on August 7, 2017, for failing to include the record on appeal. Filipina then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied her motion for reconsideration. The Petition: This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioner, Filipina D. Abutin, seeks to reverse the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The core issues are whether the RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing her own order admitting the wills to probate and in dismissing Filipina's appeal. The petitioner argues that the RTC Judge disregarded established rules of procedure regarding service of papers, finality of judgments, and the duties of clerks of court in preparing records on appeal, thereby committing grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether or not RTC Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing her own December 28, 2015 Order allowing probate. Whether or not RTC Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner Filipina D. Abutin's appeal for failing to include the record on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the Regional Trial Court's December 28, 2015 Order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (reversal of probate order): The Supreme Court held that the RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. Service of the December 28, 2015 Order to Atty. Ginete's driver, Capuno, constituted valid service upon Atty. Ginete, as Capuno had been customarily receiving mail for him, and it was Atty. Ginete's responsibility to devise a system for mail receipt. The Court cited Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Fernando Alsua which held that delivery to a person of sufficient discretion to receive mail is sufficient. Therefore, the December 28, 2015 Order attained finality on February 9, 2016, when Capuno received it, and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 12, 2016, was filed out of time. The RTC Judge's reversal of her own final order was an evasion of a positive duty and a disregard of settled rules on finality of judgments. On the second issue (dismissal of appeal): The Supreme Court found that the RTC Judge also gravely abused her discretion in dismissing Filipina's appeal. The failure to include the record on appeal was attributable to the fault of the RTC's Clerk of Court, who, despite receiving payment for photocopying, desisted from completing the records due to respondent's opposition. This conduct violated Rule 41, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates the clerk of court to take measures to complete records. The RTC Judge's dismissal of the appeal, despite the Clerk of Court's nonfeasance and apparent bad faith, prevented Filipina from pursuing further remedy and constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
Obstinate disregard of basic and established rules of law or procedure constitutes grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.