MA. ROSARIO SUAREZ, G.R. No. 124512
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
JUDGE
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
JR.,
RTC,
SPS.
ESCOLASTICO & CORDELIA
BALLAR, Promulgated:
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
The instant petition challenges the orders
of the Regional Trial Court[1]
(RTC) dated 15 February[2]
and
The
factual background is as follows:
Petitioner
Ma. Rosario Suarez instituted a complaint[4]
for specific performance with prayer for attachment before the RTC against Spouses
Escolastico and Cordelia Ballar (respondents) on
Despite having received the order
denying their motion to dismiss on
Due to repeated motions for
postponement filed by both parties, it was only on
The subsequent dates of the trial were
set for August 21, September 11 and 21.
No hearing was held on 21 August due to petitioner’s request to have it
transferred to the succeeding scheduled dates.
The hearings set for the 11th and 21st of
September were also moved to the 28th on petitioner’s motion. The hearing set on the 28th was
also postponed upon respondents’ motion as their lawyer had another case to
attend to. The RTC moved the trial date
to
On
March 1996. Petitioner alleged that
the failure of her counsel to appear on the date of the trial was due to her
counsel being terminally ill.
In an order[8]
dated
In
a direct appeal to this Court via petition for review on certiorari on
We
deal first with the procedural issue, which is the propriety of the remedy
availed by petitioner. Respondents argue
that the remedy against an order dismissing a complaint is appeal, not
certiorari.
We agree with respondents.
At
the outset, it bears stressing that the trial court’s
provision in Section 3,[10]
Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The same characterization applies to the
In
Murillo v. Consul,[12]
which was later adopted by the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court had the occasion to clarify the three (3) modes of appeal from decisions
of the RTC, namely: (1) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where
judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise
of original jurisdiction; (2) petition for review, where judgment was rendered
by the RTC in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction; and (3) petition for
review to the Supreme Court.
The
first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is taken to the Court of Appeals on
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal, covered by Rule 42,
is brought to the Court of Appeals on
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, provided for by
Rule 45, is elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law.
It
is axiomatic that a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the
doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
In
the instant case, petitioner brought this petition for review on certiorari
raising mixed questions of fact and law.
She impugns the decision of the RTC dismissing her complaint for failure
to prosecute. The resolution of the
propriety of dismissal entails a review of the factual circumstances that led
the trial court to decide in such manner. On the other hand, petitioner also
questions the lower court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration on the
ground that it was filed out of time.
There is indeed a question as to what and how the law should be
applied. Therefore, petitioner should
have brought this case to the Court of Appeals via the first mode of appeal
under the aegis of Rule 41.
Section 4 of Circular No. 2-90, in
effect at the time of the antecedents, provides that an appeal taken to either
the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong mode or inappropriate
mode shall be dismissed. This rule is
now incorporated in Section 5,[13]
Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Moreover, the filing of the case
directly with this Court runs afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from
the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the
appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This Court is a court of last resort, and
must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it
by the Constitution and immemorial tradition.[14] Thus, a petition for review on certiorari assailing
the decision involving both questions of fact and law must first be brought
before the Court of Appeals.
Notwithstanding the dismissibility of
this case, we shall proceed to address the other issue involving a well-settled
question of law.
Petitioner argues that the motion for
reconsideration was filed on time.
Petitioner received the order of dismissal on
Furthermore, petitioner begs to
differ from the trial court’s interpretation of the ruling in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson[15] that the 15-day period for appealing or
for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. Petitioner claims that the filing of the
motion for extension was based on valid, legitimate and reasonable grounds,
like her former counsel had been terminally sick and her new counsel needed
more time to study the case.[16]
Respondents
contend that the motion for extension to file the motion for reconsideration
may no longer be filed before all courts lower than the Supreme Court.
As
ruled in Habaluyas, settled is the
rule that the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a motion for
reconsideration or new trial cannot be extended, except in cases pending with
the Supreme Court as a court of last resort which may in its sound discretion
either grant or deny the extension requested.[17]
The
trial court did not err in dismissing the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner received the order
of dismissal on 20
February 1996. She had until
Petitioner
later beseeches this Court’s liberality in addressing her procedural lapses. She claims that the lower court committed
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing her case for non-suit. She argues that the RTC should have
considered the fact that she had already started presenting her evidence to
prove her causes of action, as well as the merits of her new counsel’s reason
in asking for extension of time to file the motion for reconsideration.[18]
It
is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except
only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve
a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of
procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking
liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[19]
In
the case at bar, petitioner has not demonstrated any cogent reason for the
Court to take an exception. Petitioner
committed a blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in appeals. The 15-day reglementary period for the filing
of the motion for reconsideration is mandatory and jurisdictional.[20]
Furthermore, the filing of the wrong mode of appeal to this Court is a patent ground
for its dismissal.
Anent
the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, we find no fault on the
part of the lower court. It is the duty
of the plaintiff to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in
chief on the complaint, prosecute his
action within a reasonable length of
time, and comply with the Rules and court
orders. Failure to do so would justify
the dismissal of the case.[21] The true test for the exercise of the power
to dismiss a case on the ground of failure to prosecute is whether, under the
prevailing circumstances, the plaintiff is culpable for want of due diligence
in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.[22]
There had been countless
postponements of the trial dates upon motion of petitioner’s counsel which
culminated in their non-appearance on the scheduled date of hearing. This fact, coupled with petitioner’s failure
to comply with procedures laid down by the Rules of Court, justifies the
dismissal of this case.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DISMISSED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[9]Heirs of the Late Flor Tungpalan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136207, 21 June 2005, 460 SCRA 392, 398; Ilasco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88983, 14 December 1993, 228 SCRA 413, 418.
[10]Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. – If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
[13]Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – The appeal may be dismissed motu propio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
(a) Failure to take the appeal within the reglementary period;
(b) Lack of merit in the petition;
(c ) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs;
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition;
(e) Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the Supreme Court without justifiable cause;
(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal; and
(g) The fact that the case is not appealable to the Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied)
[16]Rollo, p. 6.
[17]Barnes v. Padilla, G.R. No. 160753,
[19]Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 138031, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 439, 446, citing Sebastian v. Morales, 397 SCRA 549 (2003); Cresenciano Duremdes v. Agustin Duremdes, G.R. No. 138256, 12 November 2003, 415 SCRA 684.
[20]Manipor v. Ricafort, 454 Phil. 825, 832
(2003) citing Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,
345 SCRA 673, 681 (2000), citing Laza v.
Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 631 (1997).