G.R. No. 147417 - Spouses Perez vs. Hermano

In November 1997, petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with Zescon Land, Inc. for five parcels of land, wherein payments were structured as down payment, cash advance, and settlement of existing mortgages. Simultaneously, petitioners signed two mortgage deeds over the same properties in favor of respondent Hermano, allegedly under misrepresentation and without receiving any proceeds.
Petitioners contend that Zescon Land, Inc., through its representative Sales-Contreras, “trick[ed]” them into mortgaging their properties to Hermano and that they never intended nor benefitted from those mortgage agreements.

April 27, 1998 – Petitioners filed Civil Case No. Q-98-34211 (Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for TRO) in RTC Quezon City, Branch 224, naming Zescon Land, Inc., Sales-Contreras, Atty. Vitan-Ele, and Antonio Hermano as defendants.
May 15, 1998 – Hermano filed his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim.
February 19, 1999 – Hermano filed a separate foreclosure suit (Civil Case No. Q-99-36914) in RTC Branch 216.
January 17, 2000 – Hermano moved “with leave to dismiss” or sever his part of the complaint for misjoinder under Rule 2, Sec. 6; RTC Branch 224 granted the motion on February 28, 2000, dropping Hermano as a defendant.
March 23, 2000 – Petitioners moved for reconsideration; denied on May 25, 2000.
August 17, 2000 – Petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA); October 19, 2000 – CA dismissed it as filed beyond the 60-day period; March 2, 2001 – CA denied reconsideration.

Was the petition for certiorari filed within the 60-day reglementary period considering the amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC?

Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing and severing petitioners’ cause of action against Hermano on the ground of misjoinder of causes?