G.R. No. L-51973; April 16, 1990
Ely Chan Sa Velasco, petitioner, vs. Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI, Quezon City and Tan Sim Te @ Grace Velasco, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ely Chan Sa Velasco, as administratrix of her deceased husband Lorenzo Velasco’s estate, filed a complaint for recovery of property against private respondent Tan Sim Te, their ward. The complaint sought to recover bank deposits totaling P136,504.83 that Tan Sim Te withdrew shortly before Lorenzo’s death. The trial court, under Judge Augusto L. Valencia, ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the withdrawals constituted misappropriation. The court ordered Tan Sim Te to return the amounts, with interest and attorney’s fees.
Private respondent received the adverse decision on April 6, 1979. On May 10, 1979, four days after the 30-day reglementary period to appeal had lapsed, she filed a Motion for New Trial through new counsel. The motion alleged newly discovered evidence—a medical certification from Dr. Hinigio Tan suggesting Lorenzo Velasco might have been mentally competent around the time of the withdrawals—and excusable negligence due to her former counsel’s inaction and her new counsel’s heavy workload. Respondent Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz granted the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion for New Trial.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the respondent judge’s orders. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Motion for New Trial was filed out of time. The reglementary period for appeal or for filing a motion for new trial is 30 days from notice of judgment. The motion filed four days after this period had lapsed was therefore tardy. The claim of “excusable negligence” was untenable; a lawyer’s heavy workload and a client’s reliance on former counsel do not constitute the compelling, extraordinary circumstances required to justify relief from a final judgment. Second, the alleged newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial. The medical certification from Dr. Tan was merely impeaching in character, aimed at contradicting the prior medical findings of Dr. Idea regarding Lorenzo’s severe aphasia and incapacity. More critically, it would not alter the result. The trial court’s decision was based on a totality of evidence, including Tan Sim Te’s own inconsistent testimony and the lack of accounting for the withdrawn funds, which overwhelmingly established misappropriation. The grant of a new trial under these circumstances constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reinstated the original decision and ordered its execution.