Heirs of Llamas v. Gabrino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves two separate cases concerning the same parcel of land, Lot No. 714-G. In Civil Case No. 2009-07-CV-12, the Heirs of Encarnacion Llamas and the Estate of Julita Dioso Enriquez (petitioners) filed an unlawful detainer case against Alfredo C. Penachos, Jr. (Penachos) for unpaid lease rentals and failure to vacate. Penachos claimed his lease was with Donato Enriquez and not the petitioners. A compromise agreement was reached, wherein petitioners waived unpaid balances, and Penachos agreed to pay P50,000.00, vacate the property, and surrender the house built thereon by January 31, 2010. Concurrently, in Civil Case No. 2009-06-67, Spouses Roberto and Corazon Gabrino (Spouses Gabrino) filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Penachos, alleging they owned the property since 1979 and had tolerated its occupancy. Penachos contested their title, claiming it was fraudulent and that he possessed the land under a lease agreement with Donato Enriquez. Spouses Gabrino and Penachos also entered into a compromise agreement, wherein Spouses Gabrino would pay Penachos P50,000.00, and Penachos would vacate. Procedural History: Upon learning of the Spouses Gabrino's case, petitioners sought to intervene in Civil Case No. 2009-06-67. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Tacloban City, denied their motion for intervention on February 3, 2010, stating their interest was unclear and could be ventilated in a separate proceeding. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 07151, arguing that ordinary remedies were unavailable. The CA initially postponed preliminary conferences multiple times. On February 7, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment, citing petitioners' and their counsel's failure to appear at the scheduled preliminary conference despite repeated warnings, in violation of Section 3, Rule 17 in relation to Section 6, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA on April 12, 2018. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions dated February 7, 2018, and April 12, 2018. They argue that the CA gravely erred in dismissing their case based purely on technical rules of procedure, disregarding humane consideration and failing to decide on the merits. Petitioners contend that the CA was unjust in not declaring Spouses Gabrino in default for ignoring summons and orders, and that the CA gravely erred in failing to consider the illness of their counsel, which they claim was a fortuitous event, as a justifiable reason for their absence at the preliminary conference. They seek the reversal of the CA's resolutions and an order for the CA to conduct proceedings anew from the preliminary conference to the reception of evidence and issuance of a decision on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment based purely on procedural rules, disregarding humane consideration and failing to decide the case on the merits. Whether the Court of Appeals was unjust and unfair in failing to rule that respondents Spouses Roberto and Corazon Gabrino should be in default for disregarding summons and legal orders. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in failing to consider the special and extraordinary circumstances of counsel's illness, a purported fortuitous event, in dismissing the petition; and whether the Petition for Annulment of Judgment was appropriate.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of petitioners' failure to heed the court's warning regarding non-appearance at the preliminary conference. The CA's dismissal was a valid exercise of its discretionary power under Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Liberality in procedural rules is not an end in itself and requires clear factual antecedents not due to negligence, which were not sufficiently shown by the petitioners. Furthermore, the RTC's denial of the motion for intervention was without prejudice to petitioners ventilating their rights in a separate proceeding, such as an action for quieting of title or reconveyance, rendering the annulment of judgment action potentially moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal based on procedural rules: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment. The CA had explicitly warned the parties that failure to attend the preliminary conference on November 9, 2017, would result in the dismissal of the petition. Petitioners' counsel failed to appear, despite prior notice of a family concern and later, illness. Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court allows the CA to dismiss an appeal motu proprio for failure to comply with court orders without justifiable cause. This discretionary power was exercised by the CA, and the presumption is that it was done with sound discretion. The burden was on the petitioners to overturn this presumption, which they failed to do. On the issue of Spouses Gabrino being in default: The Court noted that the RTC's denial of the petitioners' motion for intervention was without prejudice to their right to ventilate their supposed interests and rights in a separate proceeding. The RTC specifically stated that the intervenors' supposed interests or rights may be protected in a separate proceeding. This indicates that the RTC did not definitively rule on the merits of the petitioners' claims but rather directed them to pursue their rights through other appropriate legal actions. Therefore, the issue of Spouses Gabrino being in default in the intervention context is moot, as the intervention itself was denied without prejudice to a separate action. On the issue of liberality and fortuitous event, and the appropriateness of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment: The Court found no sufficient ground to exercise liberality in favor of the petitioners. While liberality may be allowed for equitable results, it is not an end in itself and must be exercised with sound discretion. The factual antecedents must be clear and not due to the negligence or design of the party seeking leniency. Petitioners' failure to ensure proper representation at the preliminary conference, despite knowing their counsel's unavailability, demonstrated a degree of negligence. The claim of illness, while potentially a fortuitous event, was not sufficiently substantiated to warrant overriding the procedural rules, especially considering the repeated warnings from the CA and the prior postponements. The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy resorted to when ordinary remedies are no longer available. It is based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction/denial of due process. In this case, the RTC's denial of the motion for intervention was not a judgment procured by extrinsic fraud, nor did it deprive petitioners of due process, as it explicitly allowed them to pursue their claims in a separate proceeding. The Court pointed out that petitioners could have filed an action for quieting of title or reconveyance, making the petition for annulment of judgment potentially unnecessary and without real benefit.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals may dismiss a petition motu proprio for failure of a party to comply with court orders without justifiable cause, and liberality in procedural rules is not an end in itself but must be exercised with sound discretion, requiring clear factual antecedents not due to negligence and resulting in fairness and justice.