Case Digest (G.R. No. 212862)
Facts:
Spouses Fernando C. Cruz and Amelia M. Cruz and Millians Shoe, Inc. v. Onshore Strategic Assets (SPV‑AMC), Inc., United Overseas Bank Philippines, Regional Trial Court, Branch 263‑Marikina City, and Register of Deeds, Marikina City, G.R. No. 212862, June 17, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On March 17, 2011, petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, Loan Documents, Accounting and Damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 263, Marikina City. Respondent Onshore Strategic Assets (SPV‑AMC), Inc. (OSAI) moved to dismiss instead of answering, asserting (a) noncompliance by petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Michelle D. Martinez, with Bar Matter No. 1922 (failure to indicate the MCLE Certificate number and date for the immediately preceding compliance period), (b) forum shopping, and (c) lack of legal capacity of Millians Shoe, Inc. due to alleged revocation of its articles by the SEC.
In opposition, petitioners admitted Atty. Martinez had only indicated her MCLE number for the second compliance period and alleged she lacked only two hours for the third period; they characterized the lapse as excusable oversight and denied forum shopping (the other pending matter being a corporate rehabilitation). The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on September 21, 2011, finding counsel had knowingly failed to comply with MCLE requirements; a motion for reconsideration was denied on March 19, 2012.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a July 25, 2013 Decision (authored by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser concurring), the CA affirmed dismissal, holding that under Bar Matter No. 1922 failure to disclose the MCLE certificate for the immediately preceding compliance period warranted dismissal and expunction, and that petitioners had not proven any excusable oversight or substantial compliance. The CA also held that an appeal was the wrong remedy for an order dismissing an action without prejudice. A reconsideration motion was denied by CA Resolution dated June 9, 2014.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court, contesting denial of reconsideratio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying reconsideration and affirming dismissal of petitioners’ complaint despite petitioners’ claim of denial of due process?
- Does the negligence or mistake of petitioners’ counsel bind the clients so as to justify dismis...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)