Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
NEMIA CASTRO,
Petitioner, - versus - ROSALYN GUEVARRA AND JAMIR GUEVARRA, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 192737 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: April 25, 2012 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition
for review on certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order, seeking to reverse and set aside
the April 26, 2010 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 99763 and its June 29, 2010
Resolution,[2] denying petitioners
motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
The case stems from a complaint for
cancellation and/or discharge of check and defamation/slander with damages
filed by petitioner Nemia Castro (Castro) against respondents, spouses
Rosalyn and Jamir Guevarra (Spouses Guevarra),
before the Regional Trial Court of Dasmarias, Cavite, Branch 90 (RTCBr.
90), and docketed therein as Civil Case No. 2187-00. Castro sought the
cancellation of her undated Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Check No. 0133501 in the amount of ₱1,862,000.00,
contending that the total obligation for which said check was issued had
already been fully paid. Moreover, she prayed that FEBTC Check Nos. 0133574 and
0133575 be declared as without value; that Rosalyn Guevarra (Rosalyn) be ordered to return her excess
payments totaling ₱477,257.00, plus interest; and that she (Castro) be awarded
exemplary damages, moral damages and attorneys fees.
In their answer with counterclaim, Spouses
Guevarra claimed that there was no legal or factual basis to merit the
discharge and cancellation of FEBTC Check No. 0133501. They stressed that the
total partial payment made by Castro only amounted to ₱230,000.00,
leaving an unpaid balance of ₱1,632,000.00.[3]
During the trial, Castro testified
that pursuant to their rediscounting of check business arrangement, Rosalyn
lent her cash of ₱1,362,000.00, which amount, they agreed, was to earn
interest in the amount of ₱500,000.00. In turn, Castro issued to Rosalyn FEBTC
Check No. 0133501 with a face value of ₱1,862,000.00. Later, Castro issued
several postdated checks in favor of Rosalyn, representing installment payments
on the amount covered by the subject check, which the latter subsequently encashed.
Sometime thereafter, Castro discovered
that she had already settled the total obligation of ₱1,862,000.00 in
full and had, in fact, overpaid. For said reason, Castro wrote a letter to
Rosalyn informing the latter of her intention to order a stop payment of the
postdated checks. On
To substantiate her allegation of
full payment, Castro presented as evidence FEBTC Check No. 0123739 encashed by
Jamir Guevarra with the notation Final Payment for Check No. 186A0133501 at
the dorsal portion of the checks. On
After Castro rested her case, Spouses
Guevarra started presenting their documentary evidence to disprove the claim of
full settlement of FEBTC Check No. 0133501. They also presented their witnesses:
Olivia F. Yambao, representative of the Bank of the Philippine Islands,
Records show that in the course of the
presentation of their evidence, Atty. Ernesto R. Alejandro (Atty. Alejandro),
counsel for the Spouses Guevarra, requested the issuance of a subpoena duces
tecum and ad testificandum requiring the bank manager of FEBTC, Nueno
Ave., Imus, Cavite Branch to produce the microfilm of FEBTC Check No.
186A0123739 and to testify thereon. According to Atty. Alejandro, this piece of
evidence would prove that the words Final Payment for Check No. 186A0133501
had been written at the dorsal portion of the check only after its encashment.[4]
Judge Dolores Espaol (Judge
Espaol), then presiding judge of RTC- Br. 90, denied Atty. Alejandros request
in an order dated
Meanwhile,
Spouses Guevarra moved for the resetting of the
Thereafter, RTC-Br. 90 rendered its Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Rosalyn
Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra ordering the discharge of Far East Bank and Trust
Co. (FEBTC) Check No. 0070789 and its replacement FEBTC Check No. 0133501,
which, defendant subsequently affixed the date July 15, 2000 thereto, both in
the amount of ₱1,862,000.00,
the same are hereby cancelled if not returned to the plaintiff. Further, FEBTC
Check Nos. 0133574 and 0133575 dated
Furthermore,
for lack of factual and legal basis, Criminal Case No. 8624-01, entitled People
of the
SO
ORDERED.[7]
On
On
Meanwhile, on
Resolving
the Motion to Defer Action and the Motion for Reconsideration of Spouses Guevarra,
RTC-Br. 22 issued its Omnibus Order[12]
dated December 15, 2004 granting the motion, thus, setting aside the RTC-Br. 90
December 22, 2003 Decision on the ground that it was promulgated after
Judge Espaol retired from the service, holding in abeyance the further
proceedings in the case. The decretal portion of the Omnibus Order states:
WHEREFORE,
for being meritorious, defendants Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
granted, and the Courts decision dated
Further,
in order not to intricate matters in this case considering that a Petition for
Certiorari had been filed by the defendants before the Honorable Court of
Appeals, let the proceedings of this case be held in abeyance until after the
Court of Appeals shall have ruled on the pending petition.
SO
ORDERED.[13]
On
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Defendants Motion to Revive Proceedings and/or New Trial
is hereby granted.
Hence,
the new trial of this case is hereby set on
SO
ORDERED.[17]
Aggrieved, Castro filed a petition
for certiorari[18] with
prayer for TRO before the CA, assailing the
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Order of the RTC, Branch 22 of Imus,
Castros motion for reconsideration
was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated
ISSUES
Undaunted,
Castro filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court
and raised the following issues:
a) Whether a Motion for
Reconsideration is required before filing a Petition for Certiorari under the
circumstances of this case;
b) Whether the Court of
Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Petition for
Certiorari for lack of a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 15, 2004
Omnibus Order issued by the Presiding Judge, Branch 22, RTC, Imus, Cavite;
c) Whether the service or
mailing of copies of a judgment to the parties in a case is required in the
promulgation of a judgment;
d) Whether the
e) Whether the Court of
Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Petition for
Certiorari in ruling that the Presiding Judge of Branch 22, RTC, Imus, Cavite
did not abuse his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the March 23, 2007 Order.[20]
On
A careful perusal of the
pleadings filed by the parties leads the Court to conclude that this case
revolves around the following core issues:
1)
Whether RTC-
Br. 22 had the authority to pass upon and resolve the motion for
reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision of RTC- Br. 90 and all
subsequent matters submitted to it in Civil Case No. 2187-00;
2)
Whether a
motion for reconsideration is required before the filing of a petition for
certiorari under the circumstances of the case at bench; and
3)
Whether
RTC-Br. 22 erred in granting a new trial of the case.
In
her petition, Castro takes exception to the general rule which
requires a motion for reconsideration prior to the institution of a petition
for certiorari. She argues that the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order and the
March 23, 2007 Order were both patently void. She further questions the
authority of Judge Mangrobang to assume and take over Civil Case No. 2187-00 and to
set aside the
The Courts Ruling
A case, once raffled to a branch,
belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another
branch in accordance with established procedure.[22]
The primary responsibility over the case belongs to the presiding judge of the
branch to which it has been raffled/re-raffled or assigned.
The
records bear out that on January 26, 2004, Spouses Guevarra
filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision and two
days later, moved for a re-raffle of Civil Case No. 2187-00, allegedly to ensure the early
resolution of the motion as there was no certainty as to when a
new judge would be appointed to replace Judge Espaol. The motion to re-raffle was granted
by the Executive Judge on
It
bears to stress that while the RTC is divided into several branches, each of
the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.[23] Jurisdiction
is vested in the court, not in the judge, so that when a complaint is filed
before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to the said branch of
the judge alone, to the exclusion of others.[24] Succinctly,
jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2187-00 does not pertain solely to Branch 90
but to all the branches of the RTC,
At
any rate, it is too late in the day for Castro to question the soundness and
legality of the
The Court notes that Castro never
questioned the said Omnibus Order at the first opportunity by filing a motion
for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Neither did she elevate it to the CA via a petition for certiorari within sixty
(60) days from notice of said Order, pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. Castro kept her silence on the matter, indicating that she
slept on her rights. Her failure to seasonably avail of these remedies
effectively closed the door for a possible reconsideration or reversal of the
subject Omnibus Order. Thus, if there was indeed error in the disposition of
Spouses Guevarras motion for reconsideration of the
Anent the issue of whether the
non-filing by Castro of a motion for reconsideration of the March 23, 2007
Order is fatal to her petition for certiorari, the Court finds
in the negative.
A motion for reconsideration is a
condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, the Court has recognized exceptions
to the requirement, such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent
irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge
capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may
be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow,
inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely
of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of
urgency.[26] The
circumstances obtaining in this case definitely placed Castro's recourse under
most of the above exceptions particularly because Judge Mangrobang ordered a
new trial in the March 23, 2007 Order.[27]
The Court deems the grant of new trial
without legal basis. Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court read:
SECTION
1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial. Within the
period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to
set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of
the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b)
Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the trial and which if presented would probably
alter the result.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
SEC.
6. Effect of granting of motion for new trial. If a new trial is
granted in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, the original judgment
or final order shall be vacated, and the action shall stand for trial de
novo xxxx.
New trial is a remedy that seeks to
temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.[28]
The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous
adjudication so that the case may be tried de
novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking
into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial.
Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or
promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion for new trial
is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the judgment is
not yet final.[29] Verily,
in the case at bench, the filing by Spouses Guevarra of a motion for new trial was
premature and uncalled for because a decision has yet to be rendered by the
trial court in Civil
Case No. 2187-00. Let it be underscored that the December 22,
2003 Decision of Judge Espaol was effectively set aside by the
At any rate, in the interest of
justice, the Court deems
it fair and equitable to allow Spouses Guevarra to adduce evidence in Civil
Case No. 2187-00 before RTC- Br. 22. Note that what was granted by the March
23, 2007 Order of the RTC was respondents motion which prayed, as principal
relief, the revival of the proceedings and the grant of new trial only as an
alternative. This is in consonance with
the policy of the Court to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to
enable them to have their causes justly determined, free from the constraints
of technicalities.[30] After
all, it is but proper that the judges mind be satisfied as to any and all
questions presented during the trial in order to serve the cause of justice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Imus,
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
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 Chairpersons Attestation, I certify 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 26-39.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Re:
Cases Left Undecided by Judge Sergio D. Mabunay, RTC, Branch 24,
[23] ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 240, 245 (1998).
[24] People
v. CFI of
[25]ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 23 at 246.
[26] Garrido
v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358,
[27] Rollo, p.
92
[28] Jose v. Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 364, 376 (1976).
[29] Samonte v. Samonte, 159-A Phil. 777, 786 (1975).
[30] Spouses
Leyba v. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc., G.R. No. 172910,