THIRD DIVISION
|
ROGELIO
GUEVARRA and EDGARDO BANTUGAN, Petitioners, - versus - SPOUSES ENGRACIO and
CLAUDIA BAUTISTA, JESUS DANAO and CECILIA LACSON, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 148435
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November
28, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
us is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals
(CA) Resolutions dated
On
June 9, 1988, spouses Engracio and Claudia Bautista (spouses Bautista) filed a
Complaint[3]
for Reimbursement of Loan Payments and/or
Collection of Money with Damages against petitioners Rogelio Guevarra and
Edgardo Bantugan, and spouses Aguinaldo and Remegia Santos (spouses Santos),
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The case was raffled to Branch 73, and was
docketed as Civil Case No. 294-0-88.
Petitioners, in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint against Jesus Danao
(Danao) and Cecilia Lacson (Lacson), as the amount borrowed was invested in the
latter’s project.
After trial, or on
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants Rogelio Guevarra and Edgardo Bantugan.
1.
The defendants Guevarra and Bantugan are
hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs jointly and severally the amount of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with interest at 18% per annum from
the date it was borrowed on
2. To pay the said amount within a period of sixty (60) days from receipt of this decision; and
3.
To pay P15,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and P7,000.00 as litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration was denied on
On
Aggrieved,
petitioners appealed the matter to the Court of Appeals; the same was docketed
as CA-G.R. CV No. 59563. After the
filing of the appellants’ brief by the petitioners, Lacson filed a Motion to
Dismiss[10]
on the ground that the issues raised were questions pertaining to the merits of
the collection case and not to the denial of the petition for relief.
In
a Resolution dated
Acting
on petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the appellate court sustained the
denial of the appeal. The CA reiterated its findings that the issues raised
were supportive of an appeal on the merits of the
Hence, the instant petition raising
the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT ERRED (SIC) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL INTERPOSED BY HEREIN PETITIONERS.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING HEREIN PETITIONERS CIVILLY LIABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.[14]
Before ruling on the petition, the
Court notes that respondents Lacson and the spouses Bautista filed their
respective Comments. For failure to
serve the Resolution requiring respondent Danao to comment on the petition, we
have repeatedly ordered the petitioners to furnish this Court with Danao’s
correct and present address. Considering
the length of time that lapsed since Danao was first ordered to comment on the
petition, he is now deemed to have waived his right to file the same.
The petition is without merit.
Relief
from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision
or order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.[15] It is a remedy, equitable in character, that
is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or
adequate remedy. When a party has
another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or
appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such motion or
taking such appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy of petition for relief.[16]
Petitioners’
counsel received the
Unfortunately
for the petitioners, negligence, to be “excusable,” must be such that ordinary
diligence and prudence could not have guarded against it. Their counsel’s oversight can hardly be
characterized as excusable, much less unavoidable. It is settled that clients are bound by the
mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel. While, exceptionally, the client may be
excused from the failure of counsel, the circumstances obtaining in the present
case do not convince this Court to take exception.[18]
To
strengthen their claim for relief from judgment, petitioners relied on their alleged
meritorious defense, thereby focusing mainly on the grounds warranting the
reversal of the
As
held in Insular Life Savings & Trust
Co. v. Spouses Runes,[20]
relief cannot be granted on the flimsy excuse that the failure to appeal was
due to the neglect of the petitioners’ counsel.
Otherwise, all that a defeated party has to do to salvage his case would
be to claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for
reversing the adverse judgment, and there would then be no end to litigation,
as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his
client.
To
reiterate, as clearly attempted by the petitioners, petition for relief from
judgment cannot be availed of to revive a lost appeal. It must be established that the decision
became final and executory, or that the judgment or order had been entered, by
reason of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. No such circumstance has been shown to exist
in this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
dated
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Elvi
John S. Asuncion, with Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Mercedes
Gozo-Dadole, concurring; rollo, pp.
100-101.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 28-33.
[4] Penned by Judge Alicia L. Santos; id.
at 75-81.
[5]
[6]
[7] The grounds relied upon in their petition for relief are as follows:
a)
That out of the P200,000.00
defendant-petitioner and the other defendants obtained from plaintiffs, the
amount of P131,714.00 was given to third-party defendants Jesus Danao
and Cecilia Lacson x x x.
b) That there are other documents x x x presented by herein petitioner to prove the liability of third-party defendants which unfortunately [were] not given weight and probative value by the Honorable Court;
c)
That aside from documentary evidence, testimonial
evidence were proffered which are sufficient enough to establish the
culpability of third-party defendants.
It is noteworthy that third-party defendants never appeared in Court to
testify to rebut the allegations of herein defendant-petitioner which remained
uncontested/unrebutted to date. (
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
x x x x
(b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record on appeal within the period prescribed by these Rules. x x x
[12] Rollo, p. 101.
[13]
[14]
[15] Basco
v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 251, 263 (2000).
[16] Insular
Savings & Trust Company v. Spouses Runes, 479 Phil. 995, 1006 (2004); Basco v. Court of Appeals, id.
[17] Rollo,
p. 53.
[18] Insular Savings & Trust Company v. Spouses Runes, supra note 16, at 1006-1007.
[19] Tuason
v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 169, 178-179 (1996).
[20]