Case Digest (G.R. No. 207377)
Facts:
Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Nestor and Felicidad Victor and Spouses Reynaldo and Gavina Victor, G.R. No. 207377, July 27, 2022, First Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.The respondents, Spouses Nestor and Felicidad Victor and Spouses Reynaldo and Gavina Victor (collectively, respondents spouses), filed a complaint in 2009 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 9, seeking declaration of nullity of a real estate mortgage, annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, and cancellation of title that had been transferred in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB). PNB answered with a compulsory counterclaim. Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings; PNB did not file any comment or opposition, and the case was deemed submitted for decision.
In April 2011 the RTC adjudged the extrajudicial foreclosure null and void and cancelled PNB’s title. The trial court denied PNB’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with the 15‑day rule. In June 2011 the RTC denied PNB’s motion to nullify proceedings with opposition to issuance of a writ of execution after PNB’s counsel failed to appear; in July 2011 the court granted the motion for issuance of the writ.
PNB filed a Petition for Relief on July 15, 2011, alleging deprivation of due process due to the gross negligence of its previous counsel. On August 12, 2011 the RTC denied that petition as filed out of time, applying Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court: the RTC found PNB’s counsel received the April 19, 2011 decision on April 27, 2011, so the 60‑day period expired June 27, 2011, while the petition was filed only on July 15, 2011.
PNB filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 121847. The CA dismissed the petition in its December 21, 2012 Decision, noting PNB failed to attach required pleadings and, on the merits, that the twin periods of Rule 38 are mandatory, PNB filed beyond the 60‑day period, and counsel’s negligence did not deprive PNB of due process because PNB had been represented and had filed an answer with counterclaim; thus a client is bound by its counsel’s acts. The CA denied PNB’s motion for reconsideration in an April 29, 2013 Resolution. PNB then brought th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was PNB’s Petition for Relief filed within the reglementary period under Rule 38?
- Did the alleged acts or omissions of PNB’s counsel deprive the bank of due process so as to warrant relaxation of the technical rules and permit relief ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)