G.R. No. L-28203 - Bacarro vs. Court of Appeals

Title: Bacarro vs. Court of Appeals

Case: G.R. No. L-28203

Decision Date: Jan 22, 1971

Petitioner Bacarro sought annulment of a coerced deed transferring land to respondent Gaerlan. Appeal dismissed as untimely, but Supreme Court ruled appeal period began upon new counsel's receipt, reinstating the case.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28203)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Case

Petitioner Eleuterio Bacarro is the registered owner of Lot No. 2955 of the Cadastral Survey of Cagayan, covering approximately 10,364 square meters, located in the barrio of Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental.

Respondents include the Court of Appeals (Fifth Division), Judge Bernardo Teves of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch IV, and Vivencia Velez Vda. de Gaerlan.

Allegations and Transaction Details

On September 16, 1964, Petitioner alleged that he was coerced by the Municipal Judge of Baungon, Imbatug, Bukidnon into executing a deed of reconveyance.

The deed involved transferring one-half of his lot (Lot No. 2955) to respondent Mrs. Gaerlan under the threat of prosecution and loss of the entire property.

Initiation of the Civil Case and Pleadings

Petitioner, acting through counsel Atty. Tommy C. Pacana initially, filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental on April 26, 1965 (Civil Case No. 2521) seeking the annulment of the deed of reconveyance, damages, and other reliefs.

In her answer and counterclaim (filed May 13, 1965, via Atty. Pantaleon Z. Salcedo), Mrs. Gaerlan admitted the execution of the deed but alleged that:

The deed pertained to a larger lot (over 15,000 square meters) historically administered by the petitioner’s father.

Upon partition after the father’s death, the land was divided between petitioner and his brother, Nicolas Bacarro, with petitioner receiving the larger share.

Petitioner and his brother caused the registration of their respective shares through allegedly fraudulent practices.

The deed was executed freely and voluntarily in view of pleas for mercy by Mrs. Gaerlan and her daughter, Miss Pilar Gaerlan.

Developments During the Trial

On September 13, 1966, Attorneys Cecilio P. Luminarias and Alfredo C. Caballero joined as counsel for the petitioner "in collaboration with Atty. Pacana."

On the same date, Judge Bernardo Teves, acting in his capacity at the Court of First Instance, directed the petitioner to amend his complaint within ten days, warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.

On September 27, 1966, Mrs. Gaerlan pointed out the petitioner’s noncompliance with the judge’s order by citing a precedent (Castillo v. Sebullina) which upheld dismissal due to noncompliance with procedural requirements.

Consequently, Judge Teves issued an order dismissing both the complaint and, upon manifestation from Atty. Salcedo, the counterclaim of Mrs. Gaerlan.

Motion for Reconsideration and Change of Counsel

Around October 25, 1966, petitioner filed a “motion for reconsideration and/or new trial” through Atty. Alfredo C. Caballero, stating that he had “duly relieved his previous counsel.”

In the motion, the petitioner submitted an affidavit (with attachments including a deed of sale from October 8, 1909 and its acknowledgment) supporting his claim on the history and legitimacy of the title to the land.

Judge Teves denied the motion on November 14, 1966, an order served to Atty. Pacana on that day.

Thereafter, Atty. Caballero received notice much later (on March 15, 1967) and filed a notice of appeal along with an appeal bond and record on appeal.

Appeal Proceedings and Further Developments

Mrs. Gaerlan objected to the approval of the record on appeal on March 31, 1967. She argued that the appeal period should have begun on November 14, 1966 – the date the order was served on Atty. Pacana – rendering the notice filed on March 15, 1967, tardy.

Based on this contention, Judge Teves disapproved the record on appeal and dismissed petitioner’s appeal on April 15, 1967.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration of that dismissal was denied on May 27, 1967.

On May 30, 1967, petitioner filed a petition (CA-G.R. No. 39632-R) with the Court of Appeals, seeking certiorari to review the orders of Judge Teves.

The Court of Appeals, on July 17, 1967, dismissed the petition on the ground that the period to appeal should be counted from the service of the November 14, 1966, order, thereby labeling the March 15, 1967 appeal as “three months late.”

Central Issue of the Case

The case ultimately turns on the proper computation of the period to appeal from the November 14, 1966, order: whether it should commence on November 14, 1966 (when served on the original counsel, Atty. Pacana) or on March 15, 1967 (when notice was given to Atty. Caballero, who by then was acting as petitioner’s counsel).

Issue:

Determination of Appeal Period

Whether the period to appeal the order denying the motion for reconsideration/new trial should commence on November 14, 1966 (the date the order was served on petitioner’s original counsel, Atty. Pacana) or on March 15, 1967 (when notice was received by petitioner’s new counsel, Atty. Caballero).

Validity of Counsel Dismissal

Whether a petitioner can dispense with his former attorney (Atty. Pacana) by filing a motion stating that the attorney has been “duly relieved” without procuring the consent or notifying the previous counsel.

Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of substitution and service issues is justified.

Abuse of Discretion and Jurisdiction

Whether Judge Teves' refusal to approve the record on appeal and the dismissal of the appeal was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari in light of the proper computation of the appeal period.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END