ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142920.March 5, 2001]

SALAZAR et al. vs. HON. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 5, 2001.

G.R. No. 142920 (Doroteo Salazar, et al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Seventh Division, et al.)

From this Court's dismissal of their petition for certiorari and denial of their motion for Reconsideration, petitioners filed the instant "Motion for Leave to Suspend the Rules and to Admit the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration" and "Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order."

In their Motion for Leave to Suspend the Rules, petitioners allege that their counsel of record, Atty. Delon Richel Ramon B. Urot, abandoned them and left the country to evade criminal complaints filed against him for estafa, as a consequence of which they were never notified of this Court's Resolution dated August 28, 2000, denying their Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners invoke the liberal application of the rules and this Court's rulings in Legarda v. Court of Appeals ¹ 195 SCRA 418 (1991).and Amil v. Court of Appeals, ² 316 SCRA 317 (1999).to the effect that a client is not bound by the mistakes of counsel where the negligence of the latter is so gross that the former was deprived of his day in court.

Petitioners contend that they stand to lose real property without due process of law after respondent judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Hon. Benigno Gaviola, declared Erlinda Reston and petitioner Doroteo Salazar, defendants in Civil Case No. R-20589, as having waived their right to present evidence due to their failure to attend only one hearing. Allegedly, Erlinda Reston was unable to appear because she had to leave for the United States to seek medical treatment, and in fact she has not been heard of since. On the other hand, Doroteo Salazar had to fly to Manila to attend to his dying brother. Thus, the decision of respondent judge, finding petitioners to be purchasers in bad faith and nullifying Sales Certificate No. 3979, from which they derived title to the property in dispute, was rendered without evidence on their part. Petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was denied by the trial court for having been supposedly filed out of time. They filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but the same was dismissed on technical grounds. Hence, they filed the petition before this Court which, as stated above, was also dismissed.

In their Urgent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, petitioners allege that the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City is threatening to conduct an execution sale of the real properties of petitioner Dozen Construction and Development Corporation.

The Court is persuaded by petitioners' arguments. Indeed, petitioners' failure to seasonably file a motion for reconsideration was due to the negligence of their former counsel of record, which was so gross in that it will inevitably result in petitioners being deprived of their property without due process of law. In the cited case of Amil v. Court of Appeals, this Court recognized the exception to the principle that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, i.e., where the negligence of counsel is so gross that the client was deprived of his day in court, as a result of which he is deprived of property without due process of law. ³ Amil v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 323.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the dismissals of petitioners' actions by the trial court and the Court of Appeals were grounded on technicalities. As this Court has consistently held:

The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities." "Law suits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. ⁴ Aguam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137672, May 31, 2000.

Therefore, there is a need to reinstate the petition in order that the issues raised, which involve deprivation of real property without due process of law, may be fully ventilated. This, to the Court's mind, is sufficient ground to warrant the suspension of the strict application of procedural rules. Hence, this Court finds the "Motion for Leave to Suspend the Rules and to Admit the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration" to be well-taken. In the meantime, the parties concerned, including respondent judge and the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, should be directed to maintain the status quo ante in order not to render any judgment in this petition ineffectual.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved:

(a) to GRANT the second motion for reconsideration and to REINSTATE the petition;

(b) to require the respondents to COMMENT on the petition, within ten (10) days from notice; and

(c) to direct all parties concerned to MAINTAIN the status quo ante during the pendency of this petition."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA-ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE