Case Digest (G.R. No. 193650)
Facts:
George Philip P. Palileo and Jose De La Cruz v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193650, October 08, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners George Philip P. Palileo and Jose De La Cruz sued several defendants, including respondent Planters Development Bank (PDB), in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 37, in Civil Case No. 6474 (filed December 22, 1998), for specific performance and/or sum of money with damages. After defendants repeatedly failed to appear at pre-trial, the RTC allowed petitioners to present evidence ex parte and, in a June 15, 2006 Decision, awarded money damages, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs against the defendants jointly and severally.
PDB received a copy of the RTC Decision on July 17, 2006. It sent an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial by LBC courier (dated July 28/31, 2006) and subsequently refiled/sent a copy by registered mail on August 2, 2006. Petitioners moved for execution pending appeal; in an August 30, 2006 Order the RTC denied PDB’s omnibus motion as procedurally defective (citing Section 5, Rule 15) and treated petitioners’ execution-pending-appeal motion as a motion to execute a final and executory judgment, hence ordering issuance of a writ of execution. A writ issued August 31, 2006; PDB filed motions to quash the writs and a Notice of Appeal on September 7, 2006. The RTC denied the motion to quash on October 6, 2006 and issued a second writ on October 9, 2006.
PDB filed an original petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 11, 2006. On May 31, 2007 the CA dismissed PDB’s petition, agreeing that the omnibus motion violated Section 5, Rule 15 and that the RTC Decision had become final and executory, and it found no irregularity in the writs of execution. After motion for reconsideration, however, the CA issued an Amended Decision on July 28, 2009 granting certiorari: it set aside the RTC’s August 30, 2006 Order, quashed the writs of execution, and ordered the RTC to hear PDB’s omnibus motion, grounding its ruling on a relaxed reading of Section 5 (in light of distance and postal delays) and on a finding of grave abuse by the RTC. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the CA’s Amended Decision was denied on August 23,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was PDB’s Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial filed within the reglementary period so that the RTC Decision was not final and executory?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly relax and apply Section 5, Rule 15 (and related provisions) to excuse PDB’s late filing and to set aside the RTC’s orders and writs of execution?
- Was certiorari a proper vehicle for PDB to remedy the alleged errors of the RTC, or was the CA’s grant of certior...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)