Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > March 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16731 March 30, 1960 - FELIPE ECO v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

107 Phil 612:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16731. March 30, 1960.]

FELIPE ECO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

A. Vicente and B. Zapata for Appellant.

Ramon Marfori and Vicente Bonot for Appellees.

Asst. Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Dominador Quiros for appellees Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Director of Forestry.


SYLLABUS


1. PETITION FOR RELIEF; COMPUTATION OF PERIOD TO APPEAL; NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL RESULTING IN ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION NOT GROUND FOR RELIEF. — The duty to compute the period to appeal is one that devolves upon the attorney. He should not delegate this duty to an employee, because it concerns a question of study of the law and its application. If he does so and the employee makes an incorrect computation of the period, resulting in the filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond out of time, such negligence on the part of the attorney cannot be considered excusable as to be a ground for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

2. ID.; ALLEGED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AS GROUND FOR RELIEF; CASE AT BAR. — The petition for relief in the case at bar was predicated principally on the ground that the court erred in not holding that the ruling of the Director of Forestry, affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, suspending appellant’s registration certificate, was made in abuse of discretion, because said officials allegedly deprived him of his day in court. However, it is for this reason that the latter official ordered a formal investigation of the matter to enable the parties to present their respective evidence, but appellant refused to submit to such investigation. The ruling of the Director of Forestry was therefore affirmed.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


In a petition for certiorari filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 33674) on September 11, 1957, Felipe Eco sought annulment of all proceedings, orders, and decisions rendered by the respondents Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources and Director of Forestry, claiming that the latter committed an abuse of discretion in suspending his certificate of Private Woodland Registration No. 1329, covering a tract of land with an area of 700 hectares, 290 hectares of which were forestal, and the former, in dismissing petitioner’s appeal.

After the respondents had duly filed their answer justifying the controverted act, the case was heard.

On April 30, 1958, the court rendered judgment finding, inter alia that on January 17, 1956, petitioner Eco obtained from the Bureau of Forestry a certificate of private woodland registration under Section 1829 of the Revised Administrative Code, on the strength of a possessory information title covering 700 hectares but which was made to appear later on a sketch to contain 290 hectares of forest land, 99 hectares of new logged area and 811 hectares cultivated area; TigMan Lumber Co., another timber licensee, protested against this registration and filed a petition for reconsideration which was apparently granted because the Director of Forestry suspended the operation of Eco’s certificate; that likewise, it was found that portions of the area released from the forest zone were under occupancy by some 80 oppositors; that after a series of protests and counter-protests, objections and counter-objections between the parties, the Director of Forestry recommended cancellation of Eco’s certificate of private woodland and the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources approved the recommendation; that upon the appeal of Eco, the Secretary reopened the case and ordered a formal investigation of the whole controversy to give the parties "ample opportunity to formally present their respective sides of the controversy and (be) given their ‘day in court’" ; that petitioner Eco refused to submit to this reinvestigation, insisting that it was not necessary; that in the face of this attitude of Eco, the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources issued a decision, the pertinent part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the light of the above findings and circumstances, this Office is of the opinion, and so holds that the dismissal of the appeal of Felipe Eco is perfectly in order. This is because of his adamant stand (not) to submit to the formal investigation duly ordered by this Office. A clear indication of this attitude is shown by his failure to appear at the investigation on May 2, 1957, when he was duly notified thereof thru his counsel.

"WHEREFORE, and as the forested portion of the land in controversy is actually occupied by the TigMan Lumber Co., Ltd., the appellee herein, and the remaining area which was released from the forest zone is under actual occupation and cultivation by public land applicants who had duly filed their respective public land applications therefore, the instant appeal of Felipe Eco should be, as hereby it is, DISMISSED. Conformably herewith, the TigMan Lumber Co., Ltd., is hereby authorized to resume its operation inside the land in question.

"HOWEVER, and in order to quiet title to the land in dispute once and for all, the appellant herein is hereby given a period of ninety (90) days from the date hereof within which to institute voluntary registration proceedings covering the land; otherwise, this Office will take the necessary steps to bring the land under the operation of Sec. 53 of the Public Land Law (Commonwealth Act 141) in conjunction with Act No. 496. For this purpose, steps shall be taken by this Office to gather evidence for the Government with a view to supporting its opposition to the voluntary registration proceedings that the appellant herein may institute, or to sustain the move of the Government in the event that it will be compelled to institute compulsory registration proceedings pursuant to Sec. 53 of the Public Land Law in conjunction with Act 496.

"So Ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of the foregoing findings, the trial court, Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan presiding, dismissed the petition for certiorari, stating:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"The Court believes and so holds that there was nothing inherently wrong in the actuations of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and of the Director of the Bureau of Forestry; the Court concurs with their opinion that in order to terminate the litigation between all the parties here, the most proper procedure was for petitioner to institute voluntary registration proceedings; nor can petitioner claim that equity is with him in the meantime since as already stated above, much can be said about the excess in his area. The result will be dismissal. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Copy of this decision was actually received by counsel for the petitioner on May 5, 1958.

On June 3, 1958 or 28 days thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied on June 14, 1958, for lack of merit. On June 21, 1958, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond. Respondents registered opposition thereto for the reason that the filing of said notice of appeal and appeal bond was made out of time. Sustaining this allegation, the court, by order of July 5, 1950, disapproved petitioner’s appeal bond and notice of appeal.

On September 6 of the same year, petitioner filed a motion for relief under Rule 38, praying for the setting aside of the decision on the ground of excusable negligence. The alleged negligence consisted of the erroneous computation by counsel’s clerk of the period within which an appeal may be made, said clerk being of the impression that the prescriptive period to appeal in certiorari cases is also 30 days like in ordinary civil actions instead of 15 days as provided in Section 17 of Rule 41. The motion for relief was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but this court certified the case to us, the question involved herein being one of law.

In support of his view, petitioner-appellant cites our ruling in the cases of Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil., 446,1 and Herrera v. Far Eastern Air Transport, Inc., G. R. No. L-2587, promulgated on September 19, 1950.2 The aforecited ruling has no application to the one at bar. The delay in the filing of the pleadings in those cases was brought about by the inability to file the same due to the illness either of the clerk or of the attorney. It is quite different in the instant case. Evidently, what was delegated by petitioner’s counsel to his clerk was the computation itself of the period within which the appropriate pleading may be filed. This act is hardly prudent or wise. As the lower court aptly said: "the duty to compute the period to appeal is a duty that devolves upon the attorney which he can not and should not delegate into an employee because it concerns a question of study of the law and its application, and this Court considers this to be a delicate matter that should not be delegated." The negligence here cannot, therefore, be considered excusable.

Even considering it on the merits, appellant’s cause must also fail. The petition for relief was predicated principally on the ground that the court a quo erred in not holding that the ruling of the respondent Director of Forestry, affirmed by the respondent Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, suspending his Private Woodland Registration certificate was made in abuse of discretion, because said officials allegedly deprived him of his day in court. It is noteworthy to mention, however, that it is precisely for this reason that the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources ordered a formal investigation of the matter to enable the parties to present their respective evidence. Yet, appellant Eco refused to submit to such investigation. Naturally, the ruling of the respondent Director was affirmed. How can it be claimed then that the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources gravely abused his discretion in dismissing Eco’s appeal?

Furthermore, in his questioned order of June 11, 1957, the respondent Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"HOWEVER, and in order to quiet title to the land in dispute once and for all, the appellant (Eco) herein is hereby given a period of ninety (90) days from the date hereof within which to institute voluntary registration proceedings covering the said land; otherwise, this Office will take the necessary steps to bring the land under operation of Sec. 53 of the Public Land Law (Commonwealth Act 141) in conjunction with Act No. 496. For this purpose, steps shall be taken by this Office to gather evidence for the Government with a view to supporting its opposition to the voluntary registration proceedings that the appellant herein may institute, or to sustain the move of the Government in the event that it will be compelled to institute compulsory registration proceedings pursuant to Sec. 53 of the Public Land Law in conjunction with Act 496.

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Apparently, instead of taking this course and thus proving his alleged right over the property, appellant elected to institute certiorari proceedings against the abovementioned officials in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Under the circumstances, it is evident that appellant’s action has no foundation at all.

Wherefore, finding no error in the appealed order denying petitioner’s motion for relief, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. In the Coombs case, the clerk’s failure, on account of his illness, to call the attention of his employer-defendant’s counsel — to the time within which the pleading must be filed, which resulted in the latter’s failure to file an answer on time, was considered excusable negligence.

2. In the Herrera case, the employee’s inadvertance in placing in one of his drawers the envelope containing the answer, and the employer’s being prevented, by reason of illness, from verifying whether the answer was actually filed or not, was held to be excusable negligence.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






March-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 March 9, 1960 - PANFILO ROYO v. CELSO T. OLIVA

    107 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14436 March 21, 1960 - HORACIO GUANZON v. FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 341 March 23, 1960 - DELIA MURILLO v. NICOLAS SUPERABLE JR.

    107 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-12776 March 23, 1960 - MARTIN AGLIPAY, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR., ETC.

    107 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-13403 March 23, 1960 - RAMON E. SAURA v. ESTELA P. SINDICO

    107 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-14304 March 23, 1960 - ANTONIANTONIA A. CABARROGUIS, ET AL. v. TELESFORO B. VICENTE

    107 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-8587 March 24, 1960 - BENITO E. LIM, ETC. v. HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., ETC., AND KAGAWA

    107 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-11747 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELISA TE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-11954 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR ACOSTA and CONSOLACION BRAVO

    107 Phil 360

  • G.R. Nos. L-13270-71 March 24, 1960 - JESUS T. PINEDA v. MOISES G. CARANDANG

    107 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-13476 March 24, 1960 - REMEDIOS L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-14058 March 24, 1960 - William Gue v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-14303 March 24, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-11059 March 25, 1960 - ADRIAN FONG v. EMILIO M. JAVIER

    107 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-12603 March 25, 1960 - MUNICIPALITY OF HINABAÑGAN AND RUFINA NABUAL v. MUN. OF WRIGHT AND JULIAN ABEGONIA

    107 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-12870 March 25, 1960 - MARTIR ET AL. v. AMADO P. JALANDONI and PAZ RAMOS

    107 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13663 March 25, 1960 - ESPERIDION ADORABLE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

    107 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-14439 March 25, 1960 - NARIC WORKER’S UNION, ET AL. v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-10313 March 28, 1960 - ISIDORA S. VDA. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-12253 March 28, 1960 - OLIMPIO GUTIERREZ v. MIGUEL SANTOS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-13387 March 28, 1960 - SY CHIUCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    107 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-13683 March 28, 1960 - PAZ SAMANILLA v. CENEN A. CAJUCOM, ET AL.

    107 Phil 432

  • G.R. Nos. L-13688-91 March 28, 1960 - CATALINO GUITARTE v. LUCIA SABACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-11310 March 29, 1960 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. RECORDING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-13465 March 29, 1960 - SELPH v. GLICERIA M. VDA. DE AGUILAR

    107 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13832 March 29, 1960 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. FROILAN BAYONA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14710 March 29, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ENCARNACION AGUSTINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-7969 March 30, 1960 - JAI-ALAI CORP. OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS CHING KIAT BIEK, ET AL.

    107 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. L-9740 March 30, 1960 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO MUTUAL BLDG. LOAN ASS. ET AL. v. BUILDING EMPLOYEES INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-9940 March 30, 1960 - AVELINO REVILLA and ELENA FAJARDO v. GODOFREDO GALINDEZ

    107 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10393 March 30, 1960 - BAY VIEW HOTEL EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10471 March 30, 1960 - INOCENCIA INGARAN, ET AL. v. FEDERICO RAMELO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-1053 March 30, 1960 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA, ETC., v. ESTEFANIA VDA. DE ALDABA and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10705 March 30, 1960 - LUIS ATIENZA BIJIS v. FRANCISCO LEGASPI, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-10915 March 30, 1960 - SOLEDAD BACALZO, ET AL. v. MARTINA PACADA

    107 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-12541 March 30, 1960 - ROSARIO U. YULO v. YANG CHIAO SENG

    107 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. L-12795 March 30, 1960 - ACSAY MANDIH v. GREGORIO TABLANTIN

    107 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-12956 March 30, 1960 - ENRIQUE S. CASTRO v. ESPERANZA B. MONTES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-13026 March 30, 1960 - NG HIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    107 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. L-13072 March 30, 1960 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-13246 March 30, 1960 - FEDERICO CALERO v. EMILIA CARION Y SANTA MARINA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. L-13505 March 30, 1960 - BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. FIDEL HENARES

    107 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-13791 March 30, 1960 - ALFRED EDWARD FAWCETT v. EULOGIO BALAO

    107 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-13852 March 30, 1960 - PEDRO AVENTURA and ANACLETA GALAN v. HON. PANTALEON A. PELAYO, ETC. AT AL.

    107 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-14541 March 30, 1960 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO VELAYO

    107 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-14718 March 30, 1960 - VICENTE JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CARMELO S. CAMARA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. L-14794 March 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BATUNDO MINURAY and BALICUAT GUBAT

    107 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-16132 March 30, 1960 - RICARDO CANCERAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    107 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-16731 March 30, 1960 - FELIPE ECO v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 612