Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
In the
Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez,
Macario J. Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez, and Consuelo M. Rodriguez and
Settlement of their Estates, RENE B.
PASCUAL, Petitioner, -
versus - JAIME M. ROBLES, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 182645
Present:
VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: December 15, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
RESOLUTION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is the Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of Jaime
M. Robles (Robles) seeking to set aside this Court's Decision dated December 4,
2009 which nullified the April 16, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 57417 and the February 27, 2007 Order of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 34 in SP No. IR-1110 and reinstated the
Robles'
Motion is based on the following arguments:
A.)
THE HEREIN MOVANT – JAIME M. ROBLES, BEING A REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST – WAS NEVER
IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENT IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
(WITH PRAYER TO CLARIFY JUDGMENT) DATED MAY 10, 2008 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE
THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT ON MAY 13, 2008 - - - BY PETITIONER-RENE B.
PASCUAL;
B.) THE DECISION DATED
C.) THE NAME OF HEREIN MOVANT-JAIME M. ROBLES
APPEARS AS RESPONDENT IN THE TITLE OF THIS CASE AS CAPTIONED IN THE HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT'S ASSAILED DECISION DATED DECEMBER 04, 2009. HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO FILE COMMENT NOR ANSWER TO THE PETITION, A CLEAR VIOLATION TO (sic)
THE RULES OF COURT AND TO (sic) THE CONSTITUTION.
D.) THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
PRESENTED THE SALIENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE RELAXATION OF THE
RULES ON THE PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL AND THE RULE THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL. THE DECISION
ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DATED APRIL 16, 2002
HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY BY WAY OF AN ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ISSUED BY THIS
HONORABLE COURT ON NOVEMBER 10, 2005, IN G.R. NO. 168648 ENTITLED JAIME M.
ROBLES PETITIONER, VS. HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, ET. AL., AS RESPONDENTS.[1]
Robles
prays for the reversal of the presently assailed Decision and the entry of a
new judgment requiring him to file his comment and memorandum to the petition.
Robles also seeks the reinstatement of the
For a
clearer discussion and resolution of the instant Motion, it bears to restate
the relevant antecedent facts as stated in the assailed Decision of this Court,
to wit:
On
Henry, Certeza and Rosalina's claim to the intestate estate of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, a former gobernadorcillo, is based on the following lineage: that Antonio and Hermogenes were brothers and the latter died in 1910 without issue, leaving Antonio as his sole heir.
At the initial hearing
of the petition on
Taking its cue from the report of the commissioner, the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment dated 31 May 1990 declaring Henry, Certeza and Rosalina as heirs in the direct descending line of the late Antonio, Macario and Delfin and appointing Henry as regular administrator of the estate of the decedents Delfin, Macario and Antonio, and as special administrator to the estate of Hermogenes.
Henry filed the bond and took his oath of office as administrator of the subject estates.
Subsequently, six groups of oppositors entered their appearances either as a group or individually, namely:
(1) The group of Judith Rodriguez;
(2) The group of Carola Favila-Santos;
(3) Jaime Robles;
(4) Florencia Rodriguez;
(5) Victoria Rodriguez; and
(6) Bienvenido Rodriguez
Only the group of Judith Rodriguez had an opposing claim to the estate of Antonio, while the rest filed opposing claims to the estate of Hermogenes.
In his opposition, Jamie
Robles likewise prayed that he be appointed regular administrator to the
estates of Antonio and Hermogenes and be allowed to sell a certain portion of land
included in the estate of Hermogenes covered by OCT No. 12022 located at Barrio
Manggahan,
After hearing on Jamie
Robles' application for appointment as regular administrator, the RTC issued an
Order dated
On
On
Robles
then appealed the August 13, 1999 Decision of the RTC by filing a Notice of Appeal,
but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order dated November 22, 1999
for Robles' failure to file a record on appeal.
Robles
questioned the denial of his appeal by filing a petition for review on certiorari with this Court.
In a
Resolution dated February 14, 2000, this Court referred the petition to the CA
for consideration and adjudication on the merits on the ground that the said
court has jurisdiction concurrent with this Court and that no special and
important reason was cited for this Court to take cognizance of the said case
in the first instance.
On
Henry
Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and his group moved for the reconsideration of the CA
decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated
On the
other hand, Robles filed an appeal with this Court assailing a portion of the
CA Decision. On
On
On
In special proceedings, such as the instant proceeding for settlement of estate, the period of appeal from any decision or final order rendered therein is 30 days, a notice of appeal and a record on appeal being required. x x x
x x x x
The appeal period may only be interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Once the appeal period expires without an appeal being perfected, the decision or order becomes final, x x x
x x x x
In the case under
consideration, it was on
This Court has
invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The
failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of
defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court
from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The right to appeal is not a natural
right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. x x
x Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of
jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. There are exceptions to this rule,
unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify
the relaxation of said rule.[3]
The basic
contention of Robles in the instant Motion is that he is a party-in-interest
who stands to be adversely affected or injured or benefited by the judgment in
the instant case. He also argues that
the failure of service upon him of a copy of the instant petition as well as
petitioner's memorandum, and the fact that he was not required or given the
opportunity to file his comment or answer to the said petition nor served with
any order, resolution or any other process issued by this Court in the instant
petition, is a clear denial of his right to due process.
In his
Comment and Opposition, petitioner contends that Robles has no legal standing
to participate in the instant petition. Petitioner argues that in an original
action for certiorari, the parties
are the aggrieved party against the lower court and the prevailing party.
Petitioner claims, however, that Robles was never impleaded, because he was not
the prevailing party in the assailed Decision of the CA as well as the
questioned Order of the RTC. Petitioner further avers that the inclusion of
Robles' name as respondent in the caption of the instant petition was a result
of a clerical error which was probably brought about by numerous cases filed
with this Court involving Robles and the subject estate.
The
Court finds partial merit in the instant motion.
Petitioner
admitted in his Comment and Opposition to Robles' Motion that in the instant
petition he filed, only the CA and the RTC were impleaded as respondents.
Section
5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. – When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.[4]
In Lotte
Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[5] this
Court ruled as follows:
An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is “the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case.” Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[6]
In the case at bar, Robles is an
indispensable party. He stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of the
petition. He has an interest in the controversy that a final decree would
necessarily affect his rights, such that the courts cannot proceed without his
presence.[7]
Moreover, as provided for under the aforequoted Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, Robles is interested in sustaining the assailed CA Decision,
considering that he would benefit from such judgment. As such, his non-inclusion would render
the petition for certiorari
defective.[8]
Petitioner,
thus, committed a mistake in failing to implead Robles as respondent.
The rule
is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for
the dismissal of an action.[9] The
remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.[10] Parties
may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just.[11] If
petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the
court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the
plaintiff’s/petitioner's failure to comply therewith.[12]
Based on the foregoing, and in the
interest of fair play, the Court finds it proper to set aside its decision and
allow Robles to file his comment on the petition.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for
Reconsideration is PARTLY GRANTED.
The Decision dated
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 273-274.
[2]
[3]
[4] Emphasis supplied.
[5]
G.R. No. 166302,
[6]
[7]
[8] Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium Vol. I (Sixth Revised Edition), p. 724, citing Amargo v. Court of Appeals, 53 SCRA 64, 75 (1973).
[9] Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686, 692; 692; Nocom v. Camerino, G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 390, 413; Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag, G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009, 576 SCRA 70, 88; Pepsico, Inc. v. Emerald Pizza, Inc., G.R. No. 153059, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 58, 67; Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc. v. Tinghil, G.R. No. 159121, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 421, 433.
[10]
[11]
[12]