ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 135953.
JULOYA vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2005.
[G.R. No. 135953 ( SPOUSES ANSELMO and ALICIA JULOYA, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CLIFTON U. GANAY, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Agoo, La Union, Branch 31, HON. ALEJO F. ALBERTO, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court of Aringay, La Union, and ADELAIDA NATIVIDAD. )
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Resolutions [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dated August 11 and September 25, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48489 for certiorari, entitled "Spouses ANSELMO JULOYA and ALICIA JULOYA versus HON. CLIFTON U. GANAY, Presiding Judge of RTC 31 Agoo, La Union, HON. ALEJO P. ALBERTO, Presiding Judge of MTC Aringay, La Union, and ADELAIDA NATIVIDAD."
The facts are:
On
In their answer, spouses Juloya specifically denied the allegations in the complaint and averred that Hilaria had notified all her siblings, including Adelaida, of her intention to sell the lot. However, Adelaida declined to purchase the same.
On
Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union, in
its Decision dated
"WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Municipal Trial Court (Aringay, La Union) is REVERSED.
Plaintiff-appellant is allowed to redeem the disputed property.
The Municipal Trial Court of Aringay, La Union is hereby ordered to
determine the reasonable redemption price by conducting a hearing solely for this
purpose. The deed of sale (Annex 'A' to the Complaint) had a P5,000.00 consideration, while the
rejected exhibits spoke of a P100,000.00
price. Plaintiff-appellant may exercise her right to redeem within thirty (30)
days from receipt of a copy of the lower court's determination of the price, if
not appealed. If appealed, within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of
the appellate court's final determination of the price.
The reasonable price should be between P5,000.00 and P100,000.
The parties may however agree on the price.
SO ORDERED." [2] cralaw
Atty. Ricardo Querrer, then counsel of spouses Juloya, received a
copy of the above Decision on
On
"Acting on the Appearance and Urgent Ex Parte Motion For Extension Of Time To File Motion For Reconsideration filed by Atty. Gregorio Yaranon, counsel for Defendants-Appellees Anselmo and Alicia Juloya, the same is hereby DENIED.
It appears that Atty. Ricardo Querrer former counsel of the
defendants had received a copy of the decision on
Moreover, the Court cannot grant an extension (of time) to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
SO ORDERED." [4] cralaw
Petitioners then hired another counsel who filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 48489, alleging that both the MTC and the RTC have no jurisdiction over the case.
On
In dismissing the petition, the Court of Appeals held that the RTC Decision had become final and executory; and that a special civil action for certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lapsed appeal.
Spouses Juloya then filed a motion for reconsideration but this
was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution dated
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners, spouses Juloya, contend that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the RTC committed gave abuse of discretion in denying spouses Juloya's motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration of its Decision.
The issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the RTC Decision has attained finality and that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
It is not disputed that Atty. Ricardo R. Querrer, petitioners'
former counsel, received a copy of the RTC Decision dated
We can not understand why Atty. Gregorio D. Yaranon is not aware
of Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which
took effect on
We stress that law is a progressive science. It demands continuous study. It is the bounden duty of a lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of changes in the procedural rules. This duty is mandated by Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which governs the conduct of all lawyers.
A client is bound by the decisions of his counsel regarding the conduct of the case, especially where he does not complain against the manner in which the latter handled the case, [5] cralaw as in this case.
Finally, it is a rule of long-standing that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if such loss was occasioned by one's neglect or error in the choice of remedies. [6] cralaw
WHERFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated August 11 and
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA
ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Artemio G. Toquero (retired) and concurred in by Justices Emeterio C. Cui (retired) and Eubolo G. Verzola (deceased).
[2] cralaw Id. at 74-75.
[3] cralaw Id. at 76-77.
[4] cralaw Id. at 80.
[5] cralaw Del Mar v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 19, 29 (2002) citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 81 (1997).
[6] cralaw Yap Sumndad v. Harrigan, 430 Phil. 612, 624 (2002), citing Sempio v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 617 (1996).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
