G.R. No. L-30894 - Martelino vs. Alejandro

Dennis Q. Mortel, the petitioner, became involved in litigation when Salvador E. Kerr, the respondent, instituted a foreclosure complaint on July 19, 2000, based on a mortgage agreement.
Mortel filed an answer on August 11, 2000 through Atty. Leonuel N. Mas of the Public Attorney’s Office.

The pre-trial was set and re-set several times due to various reasons.
At the fifth scheduled pre-trial on December 7, 2000, Mortel and Atty. Mas were absent, prompting Kerr’s counsel to move for a declaration of default.
Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Mortel in default and allowed Kerr to present evidence ex parte.

Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak filed a notice of appearance for Mortel on December 28, 2000, but the RTC did not immediately act upon this substitution.
Despite the submission of Atty. Mas’s withdrawal on March 23, 2001, the RTC initially continued proceedings with inconsistent recognition of counsel.

The RTC rendered judgment on February 28, 2001, ordering Mortel to pay sums totaling principal, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, with the property to be sold in case of non-payment.
Mortel’s subsequent motion for a new trial, filed on March 22, 2001 by Atty. Leopoldo C. Lacambra, Jr., was deemed untimely as the court recognized March 1, 2001—the date Atty. Mas received the decision—as the start of the reglementary period.

On May 4, 2001, Mortel filed a verified petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which was later denied for being filed four days past the 60-day reglementary period.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed; one on November 14, 2001 and another urgent motion later, yet both were unsuccessful or dismissed by the RTC.

On August 26, 2002, Mortel, through Atty. Tumulak, filed a petition for review on certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking a restraining order, which was dismissed on September 5, 2002 for failure to indicate specific material dates and for using the wrong remedy (petition for review instead of petition for certiorari).
Additional filing errors included a motion for extension of time to appeal filed in the CA instead of in the Supreme Court, further exacerbating the loss of the client’s rights.

Whether the negligence, incompetence, or procedural errors committed by Mortel’s previous counsels (specifically Atty. Mas, Atty. Tumulak, and Atty. Lacambra) should legally bind him.
Whether Mortel was prejudiced and deprived of his opportunity to present his case due to the multiple counsel errors.

Whether Mortel was deprived of his property without due process of law because of the mishandling of his case by his legal representatives and by the RTC’s actions.
Whether the rules of procedure should be liberally interpreted to allow re-presentation of his case despite the counsel’s lapses.