ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 162564. June 21, 2004]

SORILLA vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21 2004.

G.R. No. 162564 (Avelina M. Sorilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals.)

This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the two Resolutions by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 14, 2003 and January 23, 2004, respectively.

Petitioners herein were respondents in a case for partition with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12 of San Jose, Antique, which was filed by private respondent herein Erlindo Macavinta. [1] cralaw On June 24, 1998, the RTC decided in favor of private respondent Macavinta. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners herein was denied by the trial court, prompting them to file a notice of appeal with the CA. The case was subsequently docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 65690.

On May 21, 2003, the CA rendered a Decision affirming, with modifications, the decision of the RTC. The said Decision was received by the new office secretary of petitioner's counsel on June 3, 2003. However, as alleged in the instant petition, the new office secretary did not inform petitioners' counsel of the receipt of the said Decision.

On August 21, 2003, petitioners herein filed a petition before the CA under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court praying therein that the Decision it rendered on May 21, 2003 be reversed and set aside and a new one entered dismissing the complaint of herein private respondent Macavinta. They alleged that the mistake or negligence of their counsel's new office secretary is tantamount to an excusable negligence under Rule 38. The CA, however, viewed this petition as a motion for reconsideration of the May 21, 2003 Decision and hence, on November 14, 2003, issued a Resolution denying the abovementioned petition. It also stated therein that the failure of the counsel's office secretary to bring to her boss's attention the receipt of the May 21, 2003 Decision is a lame excuse and cannot be considered adequate reason for the petition to prosper.

Petitioners herein then filed their Motion for Reconsideration to the November 14, 2003 Resolution, but this was subsequently denied with finality by the CA on January 23, 2004 based on the ground that it is already a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Court.

On March 25, 2004, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolutions dated November 14, 2003 and January 23, 2004. This Court, on April 27, 2004, before acting on the petition, issued a Resolution requiring petitioner Avelina M. Sorilla to show proof of authority to sign the aforesaid petition on behalf of the petitioners within five (5) days from notice thereof. She, however, failed to comply with the said Resolution.

Meanwhile, without being required by this Court, the counsel of private respondent Macavinta filed an Opposition to the Petition, which we received on May 5, 2004.

A close examination of the petition and its annexes reveals that the CA did not gravely abuse its discretion when it issued the assailed Resolutions. Generally, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel and only when the application of this general rule would result in serious injustice should an exception thereto be called for. [2] cralaw In the case at bar, undue prejudice against the petitioners had not been satisfactorily demonstrated and it cannot likewise be said that petitioners were deprived of their right to due process. In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded against is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. This was not shown in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, for failure of petitioner Avelina M. Sorilla to comply with the Resolution of April 27, 2004, and, in any case, for failure to show grave abuse of discretion, and for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners' prayer for a temporary restraining order is, therefore, DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw In a Manifestation received by this Court on May 7, 2004, Arty. Perpetuo Lotilla stated that his client, private respondent Erlindo Macavinta, Sr., already passed away on November 8, 2003.

^[2] cralaw Villa, Rhecar Bus vs. De la Cruz, 157 SCRA 13, 16 (1988).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011