G.R. No. 247345 . July 06, 2020
FILIPINA D. ABUTIN, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPHINE SAN JUAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Corazon M. San Juan died on March 23, 2008, leaving a house and lot in Tondo, Manila. Purita Dayao (Corazon’s same-sex partner) and Purita’s daughter, petitioner Filipina D. Abutin, filed a Petition for probate of three holographic wills executed by Corazon, all bequeathing her properties to Purita and Filipina. Respondent Josephine San Juan (Corazon’s niece) and Julita San Juan (Corazon’s sister) opposed the petition. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), through Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso, issued an Order dated December 28, 2015, admitting to probate the wills dated December 23, 2006 and March 10, 2008. Copies of this Order were sent by registered mail to the counsels of both parties. The counsel for respondents, Atty. Adorlito B. Ginete, allegedly received the Order on February 9, 2016, through his driver, Rodnelito Capuno. No motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. Purita and Filipina, believing the Order had become final, filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution on April 7, 2016. However, on April 12, 2016, Josephine (Julita having died), through a new counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 28, 2015 Order. Purita and Filipina opposed, arguing the Order had attained finality. On November 25, 2016, the RTC issued an Order setting aside its December 28, 2015 Order and denying probate to the wills. Filipina (Purita having died) filed a Notice of Appeal. Josephine moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a record on appeal. Filipina filed a Motion to Admit Record on Appeal, explaining that the Clerk of Court had stopped the preparation of the records due to Josephine’s opposition. The RTC, in an Order dated August 7, 2017, denied the motion and dismissed the appeal. Filipina filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Hence, this Petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing her own December 28, 2015 Order admitting the holographic wills to probate.
2. Whether the RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Filipina’s appeal for failing to include the record on appeal.

RULING

1. Yes. The RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the December 28, 2015 Order. Service of the Order upon Atty. Ginete’s authorized agent (his driver, Capuno) at his recorded mailing address constituted valid service. The December 28, 2015 Order had therefore attained finality when no motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. The Judge’s act of entertaining the belated motion for reconsideration and reversing her final and executory order was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to an evasion of a positive duty, constituting grave abuse of discretion.
2. Yes. The RTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. The failure to submit the record on appeal was due to the Clerk of Court’s unjustified refusal to prepare it. The Judge had a duty to order the completion of the records and should not have dismissed the appeal based on this omission, which was not attributable to Filipina. This arbitrary dismissal amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC’s December 28, 2015 Order admitting the holographic wills to probate.