G.R. Nos. L-40719-21 December 29, 1975
JOAQUIN C. YUSECO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and HECTOR S. RUIZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joaquin C. Yuseco secured a money judgment against private respondent Hector S. Ruiz from the Court of First Instance of Manila. Earlier, the Court of First Instance of Olongapo City dismissed two civil cases filed by Ruiz against Yuseco. Ruiz appealed all three cases to the Court of Appeals, where they were consolidated. On August 14, 1974, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals motu proprio due to the failure of Ruiz’s counsel of record, Atty. Eduardo Balaoing, to file the required appellant’s brief. Atty. Balaoing’s motion for reconsideration, claiming excusable negligence due to his secretary’s incompetence and his own inexperience, was denied. The dismissal became final, and the records were remanded to the trial courts for execution. Yuseco moved for and obtained a writ of execution, which was partially satisfied.
Subsequently, on March 30, 1975, Ruiz filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to reinstate his appeal. Without hearing Yuseco, the appellate court granted the reinstatement via a resolution dated April 10, 1975, merely citing the grounds in Ruiz’s motion without providing its own reasoning. Yuseco filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reinstating the appeals that had been dismissed with finality and where execution of judgment had already commenced.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized the primacy of finality of judgments. The appeals were properly dismissed for failure to file the brief, and the denial of the motion for reconsideration rendered that dismissal final. The subsequent reinstatement, ordered without hearing the prevailing party (Yuseco) and without the appellate court stating any reason for its action, was arbitrary. The Court distinguished this case from Heirs of Clemente Celestino vs. Court of Appeals, where reinstatement was justified due to clear findings of counsel’s fraud, perfidy, or gross negligence that deprived the client of his day in court. Here, the alleged ground was mere excusable negligence by counsel, which had already been raised and rejected in the denied motion for reconsideration. Ruiz’s additional claim of his lawyer’s abandonment due to a misunderstanding was deemed insufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court held that to reopen a finally terminated case, the evidence of counsel’s fraud or gross negligence must be conclusive, which was absent. Therefore, the reinstatement resolutions were annulled, and the records were ordered returned to the trial courts for execution of the final judgments.