GR 148435; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148435 . November 28, 2008.
ROGELIO GUEVARRA and EDGARDO BANTUGAN, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ENGRACIO and CLAUDIA BAUTISTA, JESUS DANAO and CECILIA LACSON, respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Engracio and Claudia Bautista filed a Complaint for Reimbursement of Loan Payments and/or Collection of Money with Damages against petitioners Rogelio Guevarra and Edgardo Bantugan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The RTC rendered a Decision on January 5, 1996, ordering petitioners to pay the spouses Bautista jointly and severally. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on June 4, 1996. Instead of appealing, petitioners filed a Petition for Relief From Judgment on July 15, 1996, alleging their failure to seasonably appeal was due to the excusable negligence of their counsel, who was busy preparing for a conference. The RTC denied the petition for relief on September 16, 1996. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised in petitioners’ brief pertained to the merits of the main collection case (the January 5, 1996 Decision) and not to the denial of the petition for relief, making the appeal filed beyond the reglementary period. The CA also noted that no appeal may be taken from an order denying a petition for relief from judgment.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal interposed by petitioners.
2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring petitioners civilly liable in the instant case.
RULING
The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
1. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available remedy, and only upon a showing of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioners’ claim of excusable negligence—that their counsel failed to appeal because he was busy preparing for a conference—does not constitute excusable negligence, which must be such that ordinary diligence could not have guarded against it. Clients are generally bound by the negligence of their counsel. Furthermore, a petition for relief cannot be used to revive a lost appeal. The petitioners’ focus on the merits of the main case in their petition for relief was improper, as the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence must be established first.
2. The Supreme Court did not rule on the second issue regarding the trial court’s declaration of civil liability, as the petition was resolved on procedural grounds pertaining to the improper remedy availed of by the petitioners. The Court emphasized that relief from judgment is not a substitute for a lost appeal.