|
SPOUSES FRANCISCO and GLORIA SALCEDO,
Petitioners, -versus- AMELIA MARINO, joined by her husband
CECILIO MARINO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 170102 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (Special Seventeenth Division) dated August 22, 2005 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 87932.
On P98,000.00 from spouses Amelia
and Cecilio Marino, respondents. To
secure this loan, petitioners executed a real estate mortgage over their
residential property located at No. 36-B, East Bajac-Bajac,
Petitioners failed to pay their indebtedness within the
period stipulated. Hence, on
Petitioners again failed to pay their loan, prompting respondents
to file with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3,
On August 9, 1996, the MTCC granted respondents’ motion and
issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of execution pursuant to
Section 417 of Republic Act 7160 (Revised Local Government Code)[2]
and ordering petitioners to surrender voluntarily their mortgaged property to
respondents.
On P98,000.00. The MTCC denied the motion, holding that it had
become moot and that the issues raised therein can be heard in a separate civil
action.
On
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via
a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 48088.
On
Respondents then filed with this Court a petition for
review on certiorari. In its Decision
dated
After trial on the merits, the MTCC promulgated its
Decision dated
Petitioners appealed to the RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City,
docketed as Civil Case No. 244-0-04.
On
However, despite the two (2) extensions, petitioners still failed
to file their
memorandum. Consequently, the RTC, in an
Order dated
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. Attached thereto was their memorandum. They alleged that their counsel had a heavy
workload and that he had difficulty getting in touch with them because they
transferred their residence to
In its Order of
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87932.
However, it was denied by the appellate court in its Decision dated
IN
LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Orders of
the
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners timely filed a motion for reconsideration, but in
a Resolution dated
Thus, the instant petition anchored on the sole issue of
whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Orders dismissing
petitioners’ appeal for their failure to submit their memorandum on time.
Section 7, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, provides:
SEC. 7. Procedure in
the Regional Trial Court. –
(a) Upon
receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerk of court of
the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact.
(b) Within
fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to
submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the
lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party.
Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant’s memorandum, the
appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a
memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
(c) Upon
the filing of the memorandum of the appellee or the expiration of the period to
do so, the case shall be considered submitted for decision. The Regional
Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.
It is clear from the above provisions that petitioners’
failure to file their memorandum seasonably is a ground for the dismissal of their
appeal.
Petitioners’ excuse that their counsel was burdened by
“heavy workload” lacks merit. We cautioned
lawyers to handle only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.[3] The zeal and fidelity demanded of a lawyer to
his client’s cause require that not only should he be qualified to handle a
legal matter, he must also prepare adequately and give appropriate attention to
his legal work. Since a client is, as a rule, bound by the acts of his counsel,[4] a
lawyer, once he agrees to take a case, should undertake the task with
dedication and care.[5] Failure of a lawyer to file a pleading
constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.[6]
Nor will the bare fact that the petitioners now live in
This
Court frowns upon a lawyer’s practice of repeatedly seeking extensions of time
to file pleadings and thereafter simply letting the period lapse without
submitting any pleading or even any explanation or manifestation for his
failure.[9]
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 87932 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 109-115. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo.
[2] Section
417. Execution. – The amicable settlement or arbitration award
may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date
of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced
by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.
[3] Miwa v. Medina, A.C. No. 5854,
[4] Boaz International Trading Corp. v. Woodward Japan, Inc., G.R. No. 147793, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 287, 295.
[5] Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 418, 428.
[6] See Perea v. Almadro, A.C. No.
5246,
[7] G.R. No. 131287,
[8] Balgami v. Court of Appeals, id.
[9] Borbon v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 138495,