Case Digest (G.R. No. 139607)
Facts:
Ramon Isidro P. Lapid and Gladys B. Lapid, in behalf of their minor child Christopher B. Lapid, G.R. No. 139607, October 28, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the parents of a seven‑year‑old Grade 1 pupil of St. Therese of the Child Jesus, Inc. at Malabon. Private respondents named in the trial court pleadings included the school officials Esperanza N. Prim (directress), Norilyn A. Cruz (classroom teacher), Flordeliza C. Santos (guidance counselor) and Macario B. Binondo (principal).On November 5, 1997, Mrs. Lapid sought to see Christopher’s teacher; the directress delayed the meeting and, on Mrs. Lapid’s return, presented a letter from the principal advising of a five‑day suspension effective November 6, 1997. The Lapids contend their son was summarily suspended without notice or hearing and that no prior complaints of which they had knowledge were filed; as a result Christopher transferred to another school. On May 8, 1998, petitioners filed a complaint for damages against the school officials in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malabon, Branch 169, docketed as Civil Case No. 2839 MN, alleging damage to reputation and seeking moral, exemplary and other damages.
The respondents answered, asserting prior documented complaints dating from June 1997 and episodes of misconduct by Christopher that prompted repeated attempts to notify his guardians; they opposed petitioners’ allegations and denied liability. Petitioners moved to declare the school in default on November 18, 1998; the trial court denied that motion on February 9, 1999, and denied reconsideration on March 11, 1999. Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 52970.
In a resolution dated June 1, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to indicate a material date—specifically, the date petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration in the RTC—as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 39‑98 (amending the rules governing the contents of a Rule 65 petition). Petitioners’ June 15, 1999 motion for reconsideration in the CA again omitted that date and was denied on August 4, 1999. Petitioners then filed the present peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to state the material date of filing of the motion for reconsideration in the RTC?
- If the procedural defect is excused, may the Court reach and resolve petitioners’ substantive claim that a corporation can act without the express concurrence ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)