Case Digest (G.R. No. 81157)
Facts:
Spouses Ricardo M. Javier and Rose Y. Javier v. Spouses Leon Madamba, Jr. and Zenaida Echevarria, Romeo Veluz, Alfredo Abeja and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), G.R. No. 81157, June 29, 1989, the Supreme Court Second Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 0-40422 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City, an action seeking annulment of an auction sale. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment favorable to petitioners, which was later appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 07326. On November 12, 1987 the Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes (concurring Justices Luis A. Javellana and Pedro A. Ramirez), reversed the RTC judgment and rendered an adverse decision against petitioners.
A copy of the Court of Appeals decision was received by petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Pablo Bernardo, on November 17, 1987; consequently petitioners had fifteen (15) days (i.e., until December 2, 1987) within which to file a motion for reconsideration or to take other proper remedies but did not do so. On December 23, 1987 petitioner Ricardo Javier personally filed before the Court of Appeals an "Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Allowance and Consideration to File Appeal," alleging his counsel was campaigning for public office and thus failed to act; an addendum filed December 29, 1987 annexed evidence of the counsel’s candidacy.
On January 14, 1988 petitioners filed a "Motion to Withdraw Urgent Manifestation" and new counsel (Caguioa Aligada and Associates) filed a "Manifestation and Motion for Additional Time to File a Petition for Review by way of Certiorari" before the Supreme Court (the instant proceeding). The Court of Appeals, however, denied the urgent manifestation on January 29, 1988, ruling the decision had become final and executory for failure to file within the 15‑day period and citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson (238 SCRA 46). Petitioner filed further incidents (motions to amend the resolution), but in a March 4, 1988 Resolution the Court of Appeals stated it could no longer amend its January 24, 1988 resolution for lack of jurisdiction because the 15‑day period had lapsed.
The petitioners sought relief from this Court by a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. On October 17, 1988 this Court initially resolved to give due course to the petition and required memoranda; memoranda were filed (the last by GSIS on April 11, 1989). ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 45 petition where the Court of Appeals’ November 12, 1987 decision had become final and executory for failure to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal within the 15-day reglementary period?
- Can petitioners’ asserted "extraordinary circumstances"—that their counsel was campaigning for public office and thus failed to receive/act on the decision—excuse the delay and permit the filing of r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)