G.R. No. L-29204. January 30, 1971.
Alegar Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Venancio Juanerio and Severa Rontos, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Venancio Juanerio and Severa Rontos filed a complaint against petitioner Alegar Corporation for declaration of ownership over a parcel of land. The Manila Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata, noting that a prior final judgment in a previous case between the same parties involving the same land had already declared Alegar Corporation the owner. Respondents appealed this dismissal order to the Court of Appeals. However, they failed to file their printed record on appeal within the reglementary period, leading the appellate court to dismiss their appeal motu proprio on December 20, 1967.
Respondents’ counsel then filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, alleging his failure to file was due to a returned letter he sent to Venancio Juanerio requesting funds for printing, as Juanerio had allegedly died. The Court of Appeals initially denied this motion, citing counsel’s negligence. In a subsequent motion, counsel argued that Venancio Juanerio’s death around September 1967 terminated his authority to represent the deceased, warranting reinstatement. Petitioner opposed, proving that counsel had informed the lower court as early as January 1967 that Juanerio died on January 3, 1967, thus exposing counsel’s misrepresentations regarding the date of death. Despite this, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution reinstating the appeal.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in reinstating the dismissed appeal based on misrepresented grounds?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, finding grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a court’s discretionary power must be exercised judiciously and based on truthful factual premises. Here, the record conclusively showed that respondents’ counsel engaged in gross misrepresentations to secure reinstatement. First, he falsely claimed in his motions that Venancio Juanerio died around September 1967 or shortly before the filing deadline, when his own prior manifestation to the trial court confirmed the death occurred on January 3, 1967. Second, his alternative argument—that the death terminated his authority—was untenable, as counsel continued to represent the deceased’s interest and the co-plaintiff thereafter, and any failure to formally substitute heirs did not excuse the negligence that caused the dismissal.
Since the grounds for reinstatement were fabricated, the appellate court’s reliance on them was arbitrary and constituted a capricious exercise of power. Furthermore, the Supreme Court examined the appeal’s merits and found the trial court’s dismissal on res judicata was correct, as the ownership issue had been conclusively settled in a prior final judgment. Therefore, the reinstatement order was set aside, and the dismissal of the appeal was made permanent.