ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138864. September 29, 1999]

SPS. IBAY & LEAL, et al. vs. ANATALIA ACOSTA DE POYATOS, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 29 1999.

G.R. No. 138864 (Spouses Jerry C. Ibay and Delilah E. Leal, Spouses Samson E. Leal and Julia Pinzon, Spouses Cesar E. Leal and Amelita Afalla, Noel E. Leal and Spouses Reynaldo Lagula and Flordeliza Fragata, Petitioner, vs. Anatalia Acosta de Poyatos, represented by her Attoyney-in-Fact, Annabelle Poyatos, respondent.)

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure seeking a review of the Decision1 [Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and concurred by Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Teodoro P. Regino.] dated February 15, 1999 and Resolution dated May 7, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53140.

In its Resolution2 [Rollo, p. 53.] of May 7, 1999, of the Court of Appeals ruled:

"Defendants-appellees' [petitioners herein] motion for reconsideration having been filed late by five (5) days of the expiry date for filing thereof, the same is DENIED pursuant to Rule 52, Section 1, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and Rule 9, Sec. 2, Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) which provides that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible."

It appears that petitioners' former counsel, Atty. Quirico Pilotin, received on February 23, 1999 a copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 15, 1999. However, petitioners claim that Atty. Pilotin told them that the said Decision was received only on March 3, 1999.

Atty. Pilotin withdrew as counsel for petitioners on March 8, 1999.

On March 11, 1999, petitioners engaged the services of a lawyer-relative, Atty. Fervyn C. Pinzon, who presented a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision dated February 15, 1999, only on March 15, 1999, because preparation of the Motion for Reconsideration required time and thorough study and also, he (Atty. Pinzon) had to attend to another case. Petitioners stressed that they delay in the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration was due to their reliance on the claim of their former counsel that he received the Decision only on March 3, 1999.

Petitioners contend that their Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals should have been given due course because the act of their former counsel in telling them an erroneous date of receipt of the Court of Appeals' Decision constituted reckless and gross negligence which should not be binding upon them.

Private respondent, on the other hand, theorized that this petition for review on certiorari should now be dismissed because the Decision of the Court of Appeals sought for review has become final and executory.

The Court is not persuaded by petitioners' asseverations. Time and again, this Court has held that the negligence of counsel binds the client except where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law.3 [Salonga v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534; Casolita, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 257; Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (Special Sixth Division), 275 SCRA 413;] The submission of petitioners -- that the act of Atty. Pilotin of informing them of an erroneous date of receipt of subject Decision of the Court of Appeals constituted reckless and gross negligence, for which they are entitled to relief, is not meritorious. Taking into account the antecedent facts and circumstances, Atty. Pilotin's negligence can be considered as simple negligence and nothing more. It is not so grave a professional lapse or misdemeanor as to deprive petitioners of due process. It should be noted that Atty. Pilotin's efforts in protecting the rights and cause of petitioners have never been questioned. In fact, the case before the trial court and the Court of Appeals was terminated without petitioners questioning the integrity, zeal, and quality of performance of their lawyer. His having given the wrong date of receipt of the Court of Appeals' Decision appears to have been a simple mistake which could have been easily verified and rectified had petitioners and their new counsel exerted diligent efforts to check the true date of receipt of subject Decision.

Filed out of time, the petition cannot be given due course by this Court, the Decision of the Court of Appeals under attack having become final and executory as a result of petitioners' late filing of their motion for reconsideration.

WHEREFORE, the petition under consideration is hereby DENIED on the ground of late filing, beyond the fifteen (15) day period prescribed for bringing petitions for review on certiorari under Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE