The Supreme Court has reiterated the strict rules governing the filing of a Petition for Relief from Judgment, emphasizing that failure to comply with the prescribed deadlines is fatal to the case. In Dr. Fe Lasam v. Philippine National Bank, the Court underscored that the 60-day period from knowledge of the order and the six-month period from the entry of judgment are both mandatory and must concur. This ruling serves as a reminder to litigants to diligently monitor their cases and promptly act to protect their rights, as the failure to do so can result in the dismissal of their petitions.
Dismissal for Delay: When Ignorance of Counsel is No Excuse for Missed Deadlines
The case revolves around Dr. Fe Lasam’s attempt to seek relief from an order dismissing her complaint for annulment of mortgage against the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her petition for relief, citing her failure to file it within the reglementary periods set by the Rules of Court. Lasam argued that her former counsel’s gross negligence deprived her of the opportunity to present her case, warranting an exception to the general rule that a counsel’s negligence binds the client. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the RTC’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules and deadlines.
The core issue lies in the interpretation and application of Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which governs petitions for relief from judgment. This rule provides a remedy for parties who, through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. However, the remedy is subject to strict time constraints. The rule explicitly states that the petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and within six months from entry of such judgment, order, or other proceeding. Both conditions must be met; failure to comply with either is fatal to the petition.
In Lasam’s case, the RTC’s February 23, 2010 Order dismissing her complaint triggered the commencement of these periods. Despite Lasam’s claim that she only learned of the order’s finality after consulting a different lawyer, the Court emphasized that the 60-day period begins from the time the aggrieved party has knowledge of the judgment or order itself, not its finality. Lasam was present when the order was issued. Additionally, she signed the verification for the Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA, which challenged the February 23, 2010 Order.
The Supreme Court pointed out the lack of effort to demonstrate compliance with the six-month period for filing a petition for relief, noting that the petition was filed two months late. The Court in Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, citing the Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Melicor, explained that:
Primarily, although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma, this Court made the following pronouncements:
This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket.
The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.
The Supreme Court likewise emphasized that the direct recourse to it via a petition for certiorari was improper. The Court reiterated the principle of hierarchy of courts, which mandates that parties should generally seek remedies from lower courts before elevating the matter to higher tribunals. This principle aims to prevent the Supreme Court from being burdened with cases that can be adequately addressed by lower courts, thus ensuring the efficient administration of justice.
The Court found that the RTC did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lasam’s petition, as the failure to comply with the reglementary periods deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the petition. As stated in the decision, “At the time the petition was filed, the reglementary periods under Rule 38 had already expired. Consequently, the RTC lost all jurisdiction to entertain the same.” This highlights the stringent nature of the rules and the importance of timely action in seeking legal remedies.
This case underscores the importance of diligent monitoring of legal proceedings and strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly the deadlines for filing petitions. While the negligence of counsel may, in certain exceptional cases, provide grounds for relief, this is not a readily available excuse for non-compliance. Litigants must ensure that their legal representatives are competent and diligent in handling their cases, as the consequences of negligence can be irreversible.
FAQs
| What is a Petition for Relief from Judgment? | It is a legal remedy available to a party who has been unjustly deprived of a hearing due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. It allows the party to seek the setting aside of a judgment or order issued against them. |
| What are the deadlines for filing a Petition for Relief from Judgment? | The petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and within six months from the entry of such judgment, order, or other proceeding. Both conditions must be met. |
| When does the 60-day period begin to run? | The 60-day period begins from the time the aggrieved party has knowledge of the judgment or order sought to be set aside, not necessarily from the date of its finality. |
| What happens if the deadlines are not met? | Failure to comply with either the 60-day or the six-month period is fatal to the petition. The court loses jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and it will be dismissed. |
| Can the negligence of counsel be a ground for granting a Petition for Relief? | While gross negligence of counsel may, in certain exceptional cases, provide grounds for relief, it is not a readily available excuse for non-compliance with procedural rules. Litigants must ensure their counsel is diligent. |
| What is the principle of hierarchy of courts? | It is a principle that mandates that parties should generally seek remedies from lower courts before elevating the matter to higher tribunals, such as the Supreme Court. |
| Why is strict compliance with procedural rules important? | Strict compliance ensures the orderly and efficient administration of justice and respects the principle of finality of judgments. |
| What was the specific order being questioned in the Lasam v. PNB case? | The order in question was the RTC’s February 23, 2010 Order, which dismissed Dr. Lasam’s complaint for annulment of mortgage against PNB. |
The Lasam v. PNB case serves as a cautionary tale for litigants, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules and deadlines. Parties must proactively protect their rights by ensuring timely and diligent action in pursuing legal remedies, as the failure to do so can have significant and irreversible consequences.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DR. FE LASAM, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AND HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 66, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018