Salendab v. Dela Peña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by spouses Datu Camaro Salendab and Bai Jolly Salendab against Florence Case Dela Peña (now deceased), the Land Bank of the Philippines, and the Registry of Deeds for Sultan Kudarat Province. The Salendabs alleged that Dela Peña engaged their services to sell her two parcels of land to the Land Bank of the Philippines under the Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) stipulated that Dela Peña would compensate the Salendabs with 15% of the total sale proceeds and sell them all her Land Bank bonds from the proceeds. The MOA explicitly stated it could not be revoked without mutual written consent. Despite the VOS application being approved, Dela Peña allegedly evaded her obligations, refused to pay the agreed compensation of P1,221,000.00, and reneged on selling the LBP bonds. She later executed an affidavit unilaterally revoking the MOA, which the Salendabs contended was in violation of its terms. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Salendabs, ordering Dela Peña to pay them P1,221,000.00 in compensation, P480,000.00 for unrealized profit from LBP bonds, P200,000.00 for a loan, P200,000.00 for reimbursement of expenses, P100,000.00 for attorney's fees, and P500,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages. Dela Peña's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC as pro forma, which consequently led to the denial of her Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time. Alleging grave abuse of discretion, Dela Peña filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially dismissed the petition for non-appearance but later granted Dela Peña's motion for reconsideration, setting aside the RTC's order denying the appeal and directing the RTC to give due course to the appeal. The CA found that Dela Peña's motion for reconsideration was not pro forma, thus tolling the appeal period, and that her appeal was timely filed. The RTC's denial of the appeal was deemed a grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: The petitioners, the Salendabs, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolution that granted Dela Peña's petition for certiorari. They argue that Dela Peña's motion for reconsideration was indeed pro forma, and thus the appeal period had lapsed. They also contend that Dela Peña's petition for certiorari was filed out of time, and that the CA should not have considered the June 4, 2009 order as the period to assail it had already expired. Furthermore, they claim the CA showed undue liberality towards Dela Peña. The Supreme Court, however, found that the issues raised were factual and evidentiary, outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition. The Court also found that the CA did not commit reversible error, affirming that Dela Peña's certiorari petition was timely filed and that her motion for reconsideration was not pro forma, thereby correctly tolling the appeal period. The Court concluded that the CA's actions were not attended by grave abuse of discretion and that the petitioners' arguments lacked merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was timely filed. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in passing upon the propriety of the RTC's June 4, 2009 Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the Motion for Reconsideration as pro forma and denying the Notice of Appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals extended undue liberality towards the respondents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition. It found that the issues raised were factual and evidentiary, outside the scope of Rule 45 review. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' findings that the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed and that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the Motion for Reconsideration was not pro forma, thus tolling the appeal period, and the Notice of Appeal was timely filed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. The records showed the petition was filed via registered mail on October 9, 2009, which was within the reglementary period, even though the CA received it on October 20, 2009. The Court clarified that the petition assailed the July 27, 2009 Order (denying the appeal), not the June 4, 2009 Order (denying the motion for reconsideration). Having received the July 27, 2009 Order on August 10, 2009, Dela Peña had until October 9, 2009, to file her petition, which she did within the reglementary period. On the propriety of appreciating the June 4, 2009 Order: The Supreme Court found no error in the CA passing upon the propriety of the June 4, 2009 Order. Since the petition for certiorari was found to be timely filed, the argument that the CA should not have considered this order due to a lapsed period to assail it was rendered baseless. The CA's review of the June 4, 2009 Order was a necessary part of determining whether the subsequent denial of the Notice of Appeal constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the RTC's declaration of the Motion for Reconsideration as pro forma and denial of the Notice of Appeal: The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that a motion for reconsideration is not pro forma if it demonstrates a bona fide effort to present additional matters or reiterate arguments in a different light, without intent to delay. Dela Peña's motion adequately pointed out erroneous conclusions of the RTC, specifically regarding the MOA's validity and the excessive amounts awarded. It explicitly referred to the awarded amounts as excessive and unconscionable. Therefore, the motion was proper and effectively tolled the prescriptive period to file an appeal. On the alleged undue liberality of the CA: The Supreme Court found no undue or excessive liberality on the part of the CA. The CA's granting of the motion for reconsideration and setting the case anew for hearing was justified because the Motion for Reconsideration was found to be valid and tolled the appeal period. The petitioners were also afforded an equal opportunity to be heard, having filed a Comment-Opposition, and both parties received notices from the CA. Thus, the petitioners were not unduly prejudiced by the CA's actions.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution assailed. The filing of a motion for reconsideration, if not pro forma, tolls the reglementary period for appeal. A motion for reconsideration is not pro forma if it points out specific errors of fact or law and argues why the court's findings are erroneous, contrary to law, or unconscionable, demonstrating a bona fide effort to present arguments and issues for reconsideration.