ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 140496. August 30, 2006]

DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING-PARTNER, MR. ARISTIDES R. SUAREZ v. MARIANO DAVID, JOAN PANGILINAN, MARCIAL DAYRIT, AND MELQUIADES DE GUZMAN

Special Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 30, 2006 .

G.R. No. 140496 (Don Pepe Henson Enterprise, Represented by its Managing-Partner, Mr. Aristides R. Suarez v. Mariano David, Joan Pangilinan, Marcial Dayrit, and Melquiades De Guzman)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

This Court's Decision [1] cralaw of August 17, 2004 which affirmed with modification the appellate court's decision in the case was entered as final and executory on September 28, 2004. [2] cralaw

Eleven months after the Decision was entered as final and executory, or on August 26, 2005, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which motion was, by Resolution of September 26, 1995, expunged from the records of the case.

Undaunted, respondents filed on January 27, 2006 a Petition for Relief from Judgment, [3] cralaw praying that the Decision be set aside. The Petition was denied by Resolution of July 5, 2006. [4] cralaw To this Resolution, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 9, 2006, now subject of the present Resolution.

Respondents claim that their Petition for Relief being sufficient in form and substance, this Court, instead of denying it outright, should have directed herein petitioner to file an answer pursuant to Rule 38, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. [5] cralaw

At the outset, it bears emphasizing that the Petition for Relief from Judgment was filed out of time, it having been filed on January 27, 2006, more than one year and three months after the August 17, 2004 Decision was entered on September 28, 2004, which is not in accordance with Rule 38, Section 3 [6] cralaw which fixes a period of not more than 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment to be set aside and not more than six months after such judgment was entered.

This Court, nonetheless, deigned to examine the merits of the Petition to determine whether there may be some equity considerations that are compelling enough to outweigh respondents' serious procedural lapses. None, however, has been found.

Respondents allege that excusable negligence consisting of a "mix-up" which occurred in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) upon the resignation of the PAO lawyer handling the case caused the delay in the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Decision. [7] cralaw

Respondents, however, may not so readily pass on the blame to their counsel. For to allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to re-opening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. [8] cralaw Moreover, respondents could have prevented the lapse of the reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration or, at the very least, the longer period to file a petition for relief from judgment had they periodically kept in touch with their counsel, checked with the Court, and inquired about the status of their case. [9] cralaw

On the merits of the case, this Court finds that respondents have not shown a good and substantial defense as required under Rule 38 Section 3. [10] cralaw

Respondents principally maintain that they have already paid in full the subject land and that the contrary finding of this Court was a mere assumption, capitalizing on this Court's use of the word "assumed" in the Decision. [11] cralaw It should have been plain to respondents, however, that the word "assumed" was used in the sense of "inferred", "deduced", or "gathered" - all of which are accepted synonyms of the said word - rather than in the sense of merely presuming something to be true, since it is evident from the context that the findings of the Court were grounded on the records of the case. [12] cralaw

It was in fact only after the Decision had become final and executory that respondents proffered evidence of payment consisting of a letter from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) dated January 11, 2006. Significantly, however, this letter refers to payments made way back in 1997-1999. Even crediting arguendo the authenticity of said document, there is no reason why respondents could not have obtained a similar statement from the LBP at an earlier time by the mere exercise of reasonable diligence. [13] cralaw Respondents may not thus be excused for such delay, especially since they do not even offer any explanation therefor.

Respecting respondents' recent filing of an administrative complaint against petitioner's counsel for representing conflicting interests, suffice it to state that the same has no bearing on the merits of the present case.

In fine, considerations of equity do not lie to outweigh the serious procedural defect vitiating respondent's Petition for Relief from Judgment.

On the questions proffered by respondents in the latter part of their Motion for Reconsideration [14] cralaw answers to which they seek, this Court notes that almost all proceed on the premise that they have, in fact, paid for the subject land. As explained above, however, respondents have failed to substantiate this premise as far as the issues involved in the present case are concerned. Respondents, of course, are not barred from proving the alleged payments via other actions, e.g., one for refund from the LBP or from petitioner, if such actions have not prescribed.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of July 5, 2006 is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 131-145.

[2] cralaw Id. at 146.

[3] cralaw Pursuant to Rule 38 Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states: "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." (Underscoring supplied)

[4] cralaw Rollo, p. 222.

[5] cralaw SECTION 4. Order to file an answer. - If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the court in which it is filed, shall issue an order requiring the adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner as the court may direct, together with copies of the petition and the accompanying affidavits.

[6] cralaw SECTION 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. - A petition provided 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, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final 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 maybe. (Emphasis supplied)

[7] cralaw "While the instant case was pending resolution before this Honorable Court, the former counsel of respondents, Atty. Carolina H. Tagapan, resigned from the Public Attorney's Office. While the latter's cases were pending for transfer to another PAO lawyer, the file records of the appealed case of the respondents were unintentionally excluded from the list of active cases of Atty. Tagapan. It was not re-assigned/transferred to another PAO lawyer. Thus, when Alona Marquez, stenographer assigned to Atty. Tagapan, received a copy of the judgment in question, the former inadvertently placed the said decision in the file records of Atty. Tagapan, under the mistaken notion that no further action regarding the case ought to be undertaken. Unfortunately, a Motion for Reconsideration was not filed on time and an Entry of Judgment was issued." (Petition for Relief from Judgment, rollo, pp. 174-175)

[8] cralaw Que v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150739, August 18, 2005; 467 SCRA 358, 369.

[9] cralaw Ampo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169091, February 16, 2006; 482 SCRA 562, 567.

[10] cralaw Vide note 6.

[11] cralaw "No proof of payment having been proffered and given after the lapse of a considerable length of time from the filing of the complaint, it can be assumed that no payment has been made and that such failure to pay was either deliberate or continuing, or both." (page 12 of Decision, rollo, p. 142)

[12] cralaw As noted by this Court, the Court of Appeals found that no proof of payment for the land has been presented and that respondents do not even know how much they paid and for how many years. It was also explicitly stated in the Decision that there was no documentary evidence showing that respondents have been making payments through consignation, as they alleged. ( Vide rollo, p. 142)

[13] cralaw Vide Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Lim , G.R. Nos. L-29182-83. July 25, 1983, 123 SCRA 464, 480.

[14] cralaw "Lastly, if the respondents' Petition for Relief would not be given due course, in the highest interest of justice the respondents is imploring the mercy of this Honorable Court to at least make a response to the following questions:

(1) What will happen to the payments that has already been completely paid by the respondents?

(2) Who shall now be the owner of the subject property? Would it be the petitioners who already received a substantial payment therefor? Or would it be the government who already received the payments from the respondents?

(3) What will happen to the improvements in the property in question which was introduced by the petitioners in good faith?

(4) Will there be no violation of the principle of law that, 'No person shall be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of another?'" (Rollo, pp. 234-235, underscoring supplied)


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com