GR 143558; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143558 . August 19, 2005
ISIDRO LUSTAÑA, Petitioner, vs. ARACELI JIMENA-LAZO (on behalf of ROSCHEL J. LUSTAÑA) and HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MARINDUQUE, BRANCH 38, Respondents.
FACTS
Araceli Jimena-Lazo filed a complaint for judicial recognition and support on behalf of her minor daughter, Roschel, against Isidro Lustaña. The trial court ruled in favor of Araceli, declaring Roschel as Isidro’s illegitimate child and ordering support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but deleted the support award for Araceli herself. Isidro did not file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal within the 15-day reglementary period.
Nearly seven months after the Court of Appeals’ decision had become final and entered into the Book of Entries of Judgments, Isidro filed an “Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion” seeking to reopen the case and compel the respondents to undergo DNA testing to disprove paternity. He attributed his failure to file seasonably to the death of his counsel and the subsequent inaction of a replacement lawyer. The Court of Appeals denied his motion for being filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Isidro Lustaña’s belated Omnibus Motion seeking DNA testing and reopening of the case.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that rules of procedure are essential tools designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice and must be strictly adhered to. The reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or a new trial is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Isidro’s failure to act within the 15-day period rendered the Court of Appeals’ decision final and executory. His excuses—the death of his counsel and the negligence of a subsequent lawyer—do not warrant a relaxation of the rules. The Court ruled that liberal construction of procedural rules cannot be invoked to remedy a party’s own neglect and lack of vigilance. A party has the responsibility to promptly secure new counsel and ensure the protection of their rights. Since the decision had long been final, the Appellate Court correctly denied the belated motion. The petition for certiorari was therefore dismissed.