GR 125290; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125290 ; August 9, 2000
MARIO BASCO y SALAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mario Basco was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Illegal Possession of Firearm during an election period. He received the decision on March 22, 1993. His counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 6, 1993, but the notice of hearing failed to specify the date and time of hearing as required by the Rules of Court. Counsel later filed a Notification and Manifestation to rectify the omission, setting the hearing for April 23, 1993.
The trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, ruling it was a mere “scrap of paper” for non-compliance with procedural rules, and declared the judgment final. Basco filed a petition for relief from judgment with the trial court under Rule 38, citing excusable negligence due to power outages. This was denied. He then elevated the denial to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed for being the wrong remedy. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari which assailed the trial court’s denial of the petition for relief from judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the hierarchy and proper modes of appeal. Under the prevailing 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an order denying a petition for relief from judgment is not appealable. The aggrieved party’s sole remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Court of Appeals, not with the trial court. Basco’s counsel initially filed the petition for relief with the trial court, which was an incorrect procedure. Consequently, the trial court’s denial of that improper petition was correct.
When Basco subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, he was essentially challenging the trial court’s denial of his petition for relief. However, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed it because the original petition for relief filed with the trial court was a void proceeding from the start; one cannot seek relief under Rule 38 from the same court that rendered a final judgment. The proper sequence was bypassed. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but essential to orderly justice, and the negligence of counsel in filing the defective motion for reconsideration binds the client. No grave abuse of discretion was found in the appellate court’s dismissal.