GR 70510; (August, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 70510 August 24, 1990
ELINO ONG REYES, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SEGUNDINO EVANGELISTA, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan issued a resolution granting a writ of possession in favor of petitioner Elino Ong Reyes over a parcel of land. Private respondent Segundino Evangelista filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed his appeal for his failure to pay the required docket fees. This dismissal resolution became final, and an entry of judgment was made. Consequently, the records were remanded to the trial court, which issued the writ of possession. Petitioner was placed in possession of the property on March 19, 1984.
Subsequently, Evangelista filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, alleging that he had given money to his former counsel for the docket fees, but the counsel failed to pay. The appellate court initially denied this motion, stating it had lost jurisdiction. Evangelista filed a second motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, he forcibly re-entered the property. On March 28, 1985, the Court of Appeals granted the second motion, setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the appeal, prioritizing a resolution on the merits over procedural technicalities.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Evangelista’s appeal after it had become final and executory and after the judgment had been partially executed.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ resolution reinstating the appeal. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgments and the appellate court’s loss of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals’ initial resolution dismissing the appeal for non-payment of docket fees became final and executory. An entry of judgment was duly made, and the records were remanded to the trial court. These acts rendered the dismissal immutable. Consequently, the Court of Appeals lost all jurisdiction over the case, retaining only the authority to correct clerical errors. It therefore committed a grave abuse of discretion by entertaining a second motion for reconsideration and vacating its final order.
Furthermore, the partial execution of the judgment—where petitioner was placed in possession—rendered the matter beyond review. Evangelista’s subsequent forcible re-entry did not alter the final and executed nature of the judgment; it merely converted it back to an executory status, potentially making him liable for contempt. The allegation of counsel’s negligence did not excuse Evangelista’s own neglect. A client has a duty to monitor the progress of their case, and they are generally bound by the mistakes of their counsel. The Court of Appeals’ departure from these settled rules warranted corrective action. The Supreme Court reinstated the original resolution dismissing the appeal.