Case Digest (G.R. No. 159118)
Facts:
Victor B. Cunada and Hedy V. Cunada v. Hon. Ray Alan T. Drilon as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 41, Bacolod City, and Planters Products, Inc., G.R. No. 159118, June 28, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.Planters Products, Inc. initiated an action for recovery of a deficiency after extrajudicial foreclosure against petitioners Victor and Hedy Cunada on February 11, 1981, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Bacolod City. Pre-trial ended March 29, 1982; plaintiff rested February 10, 1986. Petitioner Victor Cunada began his direct testimony on October 29 and November 4, 1991 but did not complete it. The RTC set further hearings (Feb. 12, Apr. 29, June 8, July 23, Sept. 17 and Dec. 7, 1992) but notices were not served because petitioners were abroad; the server returned the Feb. 12 notice unserved with notation that petitioners were out of the country.
On December 7, 1992 the RTC issued an order striking Victor Cunada’s incomplete testimony, deemed the case submitted, and, after several changes of judges, rendered judgment for Planters Products on October 15, 2001. Petitioners’ motion for new trial or reconsideration was denied on April 23, 2003. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari dated June 11, 2003 directly with the Supreme Court; the Court dismissed the petition by Resolution dated September 17, 2003 for failure to state material dates, for being a wrong remedy, and for disregard of judicial hierarchy. Petitioners posted a Motion for Reconsideration with an attached Amended Petition on November 11, 2003 (one day before the fifteen‑day period expired) but the Court’s records show receipt only on March 15, 2004. Petitioners filed a verified Request for Correction dated April 2, 2004 asking the Second Division Clerk to correct the record to reflect timely filing. The Supreme Court considered the filing posture and the suffi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Motion for Reconsideration seasonably filed so that the Entry of Judgment should be recalled?
- Should the petition for certiorari have been dismissed for failure to state the material dates required under the Rules and related circulars?
- Was certiorari the proper remedy instead of an appeal, and did petitioners violate the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by filing directly in the Supreme Court?
- On the merits, did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in striking petitioner Victor Cunada’s incomplete testimony and in entering judgment; and may a mortgage...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)