|
ROMEO
SAMONTE, Petitioner, - versus - S.F. NAGUIAT, INC.,
Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 165544 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: October 2,
2009 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a
petition for review on certiorari
filed by Romeo Samonte which seeks to set aside the Decision[1]
dated March 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 70213,
dismissing his petition for certiorari of the Order[2]
dated December 21, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan, in
Civil Case No. 585-M-2000, denying his petition for relief from judgment. Also assailed is the CA Resolution[3]
dated
The antecedent facts, as narrated by the Court of Appeals,
are as follows:
Petitioner Romeo Samonte is the President and General Manager of S.B.
Commercial Traders, Inc. (SB Traders, for brevity), a corporation engaged in
the business of retailing motor oils and lubricants. It (sic) purchases Mobil products on credit basis from
one of Mobil Oil
On P1,105,143.27 arising from the sale of Mobil Oil
products. It further averred that SB Traders was merely an alter ego of the
petitioner and that it was operating for his sole benefit.. Therefore, the
petitioner and SB Traders must be held solidarily liable for the subject
amount.
The petitioner filed an
answer denying all the material averments of the complaint, As special and
affirmative defenses, he claimed that he was not acting in his personal
capacity and was merely acting for and in behalf of SB Traders; that SB Traders
never denied its obligation to pay for the purchases it made with the private
respondent but was merely requesting for more time to settle its accounts; and
that to effect payment for the subject amount, it had already issued postdated
checks of P25,000.00 per month covering the period from June to December
1999 to the private respondent.
Despite due notice, the
petitioner and his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial
conference on
On
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants S.B. Commercial
Traders, Inc. and Romeo G. Samonte to
pay, jointly and severally, unto plaintiff S.F. Naguiat, Incorporated the
following amounts: P1,105,143.27 as prayed for in the complaint
representing the value of the oil products reflected in the Invoices marked as Exhibits 'B' to '
O' and 'O-1'-and 'P', with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from
the filing of the complaint on September 4, 2000 until the same shall have been
paid in full; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
20% of the entire amount due and demandable from the defendants as and
for attorney's fees, plus the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
The petitioner failed to appeal the
said decision. Thereafter, on motion by
the private respondent, the public respondent ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution on
On
On
Petitioner
filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
reiterating the grounds stated in his petition for relief from judgment filed
with the RTC. Respondent filed its Comment. The parties subsequently filed
their respective memoranda.
On
In so ruling, the CA
found that the records showed that petitioner failed to file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal from the RTC Decision dated May 25, 2001 causing
the said decision to become final and executory; that when petitioner filed the
petition for relief from judgment, petitioner did not offer any reason for his
failure to appeal; there was no assertion that the RTC decision was entered
against him through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. The CA
noted that the petition was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit showing
the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon and the facts
constituting petitioner's good and substantial defense as required by law. It also agreed with the RTC's observation
that petitioner did not assail the proceedings conducted below, but merely
questioned the validity of the dispositive portion of the RTC decision, thus,
the petition for relief from judgment was fatally flawed and should have been
dismissed outright.
The CA added that notwithstanding such defect, the RTC
proceeded with hearing the petition perhaps as an act of grace giving
petitioner one last chance to protect his interest and present evidence in
support of his arguments, but petitioner opted to dispense with the
presentation of evidence in support of the said petition; that petitioner could
not claim that he was denied his day in court or claim that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion. The CA then said that once a judgment becomes final,
executory and unappealable, the prevailing party shall not be deprived of the
fruits of victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated
Petitioner
is now before the Court raising the following grounds:
The Honorable Court committed an irreversible error in dismissing herein Petitioner's Petition for Certiorari and subsequently thereafter, in denying his Motion for Reconsideration thereto for lack of merit.
The Honorable Court gravely erred in strictly applying the rules of procedure at the expense of substantial justice.
The Honorable Court
committed an irreversible error in not ruling on the merits of the case.[5]
The
petition has no merit.
The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that no grave
abuse of discretion was committed by the RTC in dismissing the petition for
relief from judgment filed by petitioner therewith.
Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
provide the requirements for a petition for relief from judgment, thus:
SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. – When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
SEC. 3. Time for filing of petition; contents and verification.— A petition for in either of the preceding sections of this rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.
Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is
a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is
entered into through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. The relief provided for is of equitable
character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no other
available or adequate remedy.[6]
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 lower court, and he was
not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing
such motion or taking the appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief provided
in Rule 38. The rule is that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks
avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law
was due to his own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure, otherwise the
petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which
has already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a
mistake in the mode of procedure by counsel.[7]
In his Petition for Relief from
Judgment filed before the RTC, petitioner alleged that the petition was filed
on the ground that the RTC made serious and prejudicial mistakes in
appreciating the evidence presented. He then proceeded to discuss the errors of
judgment committed by the RTC in rendering its decision.
The mistake
contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of
fact, not of law, which relates to the case.[8] The word “mistake” which grants relief from
judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error
which the court might have committed in the trial.[9] Such error may be corrected by means of an
appeal.
The
arguments raised by petitioner in his petition for relief from judgment, i.e.,
he cannot be held
civilly liable for obligations he, as corporate president thereof, has incurred
in behalf of the corporation which is vested with a personality separate and
distinct from its officers and stockholders; and that he cannot be held jointly
and solidarily liable for the obligations, are proper issues which petitioner
could have raised in a motion for reconsideration which he did not. The RTC, in its Order denying the petition
for relief, ruled:
Going by the tenor of the aforequoted Rule, it is the sense of this Court that the petition under consideration cannot prosper, given the grounds therefor which should have been raised, more appropriately, in a simple motion for reconsideration. It must be noted that the petitioner does not assail the proceedings conducted by this Court which culminated in the rendition of the judgment and issuance of the writ of execution rather; he
questions only the validity of the dispositive portion of the decision, an issue which, as already adverted to, should have been ventilated via a motion for reconsideration.[10]
In fact, the alleged errors committed
by the RTC could also be corrected by means of an appeal from the RTC decision.
Petitioner did not also file an appeal causing the RTC decision to become final
and executory and the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution. Notably,
petitioner never made any allegation in his petition for relief from judgment
that the RTC decision was entered against him through fraud, accident, mistake,
or excusable negligence. The petition for relief did not also show any reason
for petitioner's failure to file an appeal after the receipt of the RTC
decision which the CA correctly observed in its assailed decision.
Petitioner’s
claim that Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court does not require that petitioner should state the reason
why he did not avail of the remedy of appeal deserves scant consideration. His failure to
avail of the remedy of appeal within the reglementary period despite receipt of
the RTC decision rendered the same final and executory. He cannot be allowed to assail the RTC
decision which had become final in a petition for relief from judgment when
there was no allegations of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
which prevented him from interposing an appeal. Such appeal could have
corrected what he believed to be an erroneous judicial decision. To reiterate, petition for relief is an
equitable remedy that is allowed
only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy[11] which is not present in petitioner’s
case. Thus, petitioner's resort to a
petition for relief under Rule 38 was not proper and the CA correctly ruled
that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition
for relief from judgment.
Petitioner
argues that the CA erred in finding that an affidavit of merit is an essential
requirement in filing a petition for relief from judgment and that without said
affidavit the same would be denied.
The Court does not agree.
Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court requires that the
petition must be accompanied with affidavits of merits showing the fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon by petitioner and the
facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
defense as the case maybe. While a petition for relief without a separate
affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts constituting petitioner’s
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be, are alleged in a
verified petition since the oath elevates the petition to the same category as
a separate affidavit,[12]
the petition for relief filed by petitioner was not even verified. Thus, the CA did not err in no longer
considering the merits of the case.
Petitioner now contends that the CA should have considered
that it was petitioner's former counsel who has the implied authority to
determine what procedural steps to take which in his judgment will best serve
the interest of his client; that petitioner, being not knowledgeable of the
laws, ought not to be blamed by the incompetence, ignorance and inexperience of
his counsel; and that rules of procedure should give way for a liberal
construction if the same will hinder, impede or sacrifice the demands of
substantial justice.
There is no rule more settled than that
a client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling
the case.[13] To allow a party to disown his counsel’s
conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to
reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[14]
Petitioner failed to show that his counsel’s negligence was
so gross and palpable as to call for the exercise of this Court’s equity
jurisdiction. While it is true that rules of procedure are not cast in stone,
it is equally true that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for
the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch
of judicial business.[15]
In Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[16] the
Court said:
Thus, while regretful that the petitioners may have
had meritorious defenses against the trial court’s
It has long been recognized that strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. For the Court to allow the reopening or remand of the case after such a display of indifference to the requirements of the Rules of Court would put a strain on the orderly administration of justice.[17]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
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.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Third
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were 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 Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp. 34-39.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-18.
[3] Rollo, p. 40.
[4]
[5] Rollo, p. 15.
[6] Ibabao v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-74848,
[7]
[8] Agan v. Heirs of Sps. Andres Nueva and Diosdada Nueva, G.R. No. 155018, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 421, 426.
[9]
[10] CA rollo, p. 17.
[11] Insular Life Savings and Trust Company v. Runes, Jr., G.R. No. 152530, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 317, 325, citing Mercury Drug Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 335 SCRA 567 (2000).
[12] Mago v. Court of Appeals, 363 Phil. 225 (1999).
[13] Heirs of the Late Cruz Barredo v. Asis, G.R. No. 153306, August 27, 2004, 437 SCRA 196, 200, citing Alabanzas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74697, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 304.
[14]
Gomez v. Montalban, G.R.
No. 174414,
[15] Lynx
Industries Contractor, Inc. v. Tala, G.R. No. 164333,
[16]
G.R. No. 144118,
[17]