GR 199283; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199283, June 9, 2014
JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME, represented by his attorneys-in-fact and acting in their personal capacities, RODOLFO and RUBY BARTOLOME, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES and CAROLINA N. MORALES, Respondents.
FACTS
On January 9, 2001, respondents Spouses Morales filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure of a house and lot in Quezon City, alleging a loan of ₱500,000.00 secured by a mortgage from the now-deceased Spouses Bartolome. Petitioners, as heirs and representatives, were named defendants. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on December 22, 2009, ordering petitioners to pay the debt plus interest. Petitioners received the decision on January 29, 2010, and filed a motion for reconsideration on February 8, 2010, which the RTC denied in an order dated May 25, 2010, received by their counsel on June 24, 2010. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on August 11, 2010, which the RTC denied due course for being filed out of time, as the 15-day appeal period expired on July 9, 2010. On September 24, 2010, petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment, blaming their 80-year-old lawyer’s failure to timely appeal as excusable negligence due to his age. The RTC denied this petition on April 27, 2011, for being filed beyond the 60-day period from finality of judgment. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 13, 2011, without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC order denying the petition for relief. The CA dismissed the petition outright for this failure. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the failure of petitioners’ former counsel to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period is excusable negligence.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioners’ petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the petition for relief from judgment.
RULING
1. No, the failure was not excusable negligence. The Supreme Court held that the mere allegation that counsel was 80 years old constitutes a prejudicial stereotype and does not establish excusable negligence. Negligence of counsel is only excusable if it could not have been prevented by ordinary diligence and prudence. The Court emphasized that a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and requires strict compliance with jurisdictional periods.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a petition for certiorari, as it allows the lower court to correct its own error. The exception for pure questions of law cited by petitioners (Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals) was found inapplicable. The Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal for failure to comply with this procedural requirement. Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the petition for relief from judgment was itself filed out of time, as it was not filed within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment (June 24, 2010) and within six months from entry of the final order, making its denial proper.