GR 207433; (December, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018
DR. FE LASAM, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 66, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Dr. Fe Lasam filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage against Philippine National Bank (PNB). On February 23, 2010, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her case for failure to prosecute after her counsel failed to appear at a hearing. Her counsel’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied, and a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was dismissed. This dismissal was affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2012, with an Entry of Judgment recorded on May 3, 2012.
Claiming she only learned of the finality of the dismissal order after consulting a new lawyer, Lasam filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC on January 22, 2013. She alleged gross negligence by her former counsel as the ground for relief. The RTC dismissed her petition outright, ruling it was filed beyond the reglementary periods prescribed under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing outright Lasam’s Petition for Relief from Judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. A petition for relief under Rule 38 is a remedy granted only upon strict compliance with two jurisdictional periods: it must be filed (a) within sixty (60) days from the petitioner’s knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside, and (b) within six (6) months from its entry. These periods are mandatory and cannot be extended.
The Court found that Lasam failed to comply with both periods. Her knowledge of the adverse February 23, 2010 Order is deemed to have been acquired when her former counsel received the order denying reconsideration on April 29, 2010, not from her later personal discovery. Counting from April 2010, her January 22, 2013 petition was filed almost three years beyond the 60-day limit. Furthermore, counting from the Entry of Judgment on May 3, 2012, her petition was also filed over eight months later, exceeding the six-month period. The expiration of these periods divested the RTC of jurisdiction to entertain the petition for relief. Consequently, the RTC’s dismissal was correct, and the issue of her counsel’s alleged negligence became moot. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.