G.R. No. 234660 , June 26, 2023
Spouses Magdalino Gabun and Carol Gabun, Nora A. Lopez, and Marcelino Alfonso, Petitioners, vs. Winston Clark Stolk, Sr., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Winston Clark Stolk, Sr. filed a Verified Petition for Habeas Corpus against petitioners, seeking custody of his minor son, Winston Clark Daen Stolk, Jr. Respondent claimed he and the child’s mother, Catherine Alfonso Daen, lived together in the USA without marriage. Catherine died after giving birth in the Philippines, leaving Winston in the care of petitioners, who are the child’s collateral grandparents. A DNA test confirmed respondent’s paternity with a 99.9997% probability. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and awarded custody to respondent in a Decision dated April 22, 2014. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated November 4, 2014. Petitioners then filed a Notice of Appeal by registered mail on November 24, 2014, but the RTC dismissed the appeal in an Order dated December 7, 2014 for nonpayment of docket fees within the reglementary period. The RTC declared the Decision final in an Order dated December 11, 2014. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal order, arguing that their counsel received the November 4, 2014 Order only on December 3, 2014, making their appeal timely. The RTC denied this in an Order dated August 26, 2016, stating the dismissal had become immutable. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it in a Resolution dated August 23, 2017 for being time-barred, ruling that the 60-day period to file certiorari ran from notice of the August 26, 2016 Order, not from the denial of a second motion for reconsideration (May 19, 2017 Order). The CA also found the RTC’s Decision had become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari on technicalities.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The reglementary period to file a certiorari petition under Rule 65 is 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. If a motion for reconsideration is filed, the period is counted from notice of its denial. Petitioners received the RTC’s August 26, 2016 Order (denying their motion) on March 9, 2017. Their certiorari petition filed on July 28, 2017 was beyond the 60-day period. The filing of a second motion for reconsideration (denied on May 19, 2017) did not toll the running of the period. The RTC’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal for nonpayment of docket fees was proper under Rule 41, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. The RTC’s April 22, 2014 Decision had thus become final and executory. While the Court has the power to relax procedural rules, petitioners failed to show compelling reasons to warrant such liberality, as their procedural missteps were numerous and indicative of negligence. On the substantive issue, the RTC correctly awarded custody to respondent, the biological father, as parental authority over an illegitimate child, upon the mother’s death, is granted to the father under Article 176 of the Family Code, and petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s unfitness.