April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 200568 : April 25, 2012]
HEIRS OF MARCELO LEMEN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY
G.R. No. 200568 (Heirs of Marcelo Lemen, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Register of Deeds of Marikina City)
RESOLUTION
After a careful perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in upholding the dismissal of the petition for relief filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) notwithstanding the absence of a hearing. Petitioners Heirs of Marcelo Lemen, Jr. filed their petition for relief on May 11, 2007, or almost nine months after their former counsel received a copy of the order denying their motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal on August 10, 2006. Hence, while the RTC may hear the petition as provided under Sec. 6,[1] Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, however, since it was filed way out of time[2], the RTC correctly dismissed it sans any hearing. It bears to stress that the period within which to file a petition for relief is absolutely fixed, inextendible, uninterrupted and not subject to any condition or contingency.[3] Moreover, the mistake or negligence of the counsel binds his client, unless such mistake or negligence amounts to gross negligence or deprivation of due process on the part of his client, which exceptions do not obtain in this case.
Furthermore, the present petition suffers from the following technical defects: (1) it lacks a statement of material dates of the receipt of the assailed decision and filing of the motion for reconsideration; (2) the affidavit of service was notarized prior to the actual date of service of copies of the petition upon the CA and respondents; and (3) the jurat of the verification of the petition and certification against forum shopping lacks current identification documents issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual in violation of Sections 2, 6 and 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.cralaw
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] SEC. 6. Proceedings after answer is filed. - After the filing of the answer or the expiration of the period therefor, the court shall hear the petition and if after such hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof are not true, the petition shall be dismissed; but if it finds said allegations to be true, it shall set aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding complained of upon such terms as may be just. Thereafter the case shall stand as if such judgment, final order or other proceeding had never been rendered, issued or taken. The court shall then proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration had been granted by it.[2] Under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, a petition for relief should be 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."
[3] Laureano Arcilla v. Basilisa Arcilla, et al., G.R. No. L-46674, September 16, 1985, 138 SCRA 560; Sps. Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 150722, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA, 468.