GR 146547; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146547; June 20, 2006
VILLA MACASASA and GERTRUDES LANUTAN, Petitioners, vs. JUANITA SICAD and ERNESTO MACASASA, Respondents.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a joint decision in two consolidated civil cases, ordering petitioners to vacate a parcel of land and pay attorney’s fees and “all incidental expenses incurred.” The decision became final and a writ of execution was issued. Subsequently, the RTC issued an Order dated August 6, 1996, which, upon respondents’ motion, quantified the “incidental expenses” as P1,200,000.00, declared a supersedeas bond forfeited, and ordered the levy of petitioners’ properties. Petitioners received this Order on August 14, 1996.
On October 4, 1996, petitioners filed a Petition for Relief from the August 6, 1996 Order, arguing it was issued without due process as they were not notified of any hearing to contest the P1.2 million award, and that the bill of costs was defective. The RTC dismissed the petition, finding it was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period from notice of the Order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for Relief from the RTC’s August 6, 1996 Order was filed on time, and whether the Order was issued with due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the RTC’s August 6, 1996 Order. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of a petition for relief under Rule 38. The reglementary period of sixty (60) days is counted from the time the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding from which relief is sought. Here, petitioners received the assailed Order on August 14, 1996. Their Petition for Relief filed on October 4, 1996, was within the 60-day period, having been filed only fifty-one (51) days later. The RTC and CA therefore committed a reversible error in dismissing the petition as time-barred.
On the substantive issue, the Court held the August 6, 1996 Order was void for having been issued without due process. The original decision only awarded an unquantified sum for “incidental expenses.” The subsequent order fixing the amount at P1.2 million based solely on respondents’ motion, without a hearing where petitioners could contest the reasonableness or validity of the claimed expenses, violated petitioners’ fundamental right to be heard. An order issued in violation of due process is void and does not become final. Consequently, all proceedings pursuant to the void order, including the auction sale, were also void. The Court ordered the return of the auctioned property to petitioners.