G.R. No. 217121 - Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corp. vs. Municipal Government of Murcia

In August 2010, SPIDC engaged the services of the Kapunan Lotilla Garcia and Castillo Law Offices to pursue both a civil collection case and an administrative case against the Municipal Government of Murcia.
Under the agreement, SPIDC was obliged to pay acceptance, contingency, and deposit fees, as evidenced by official receipts dated February 4, 2011 (Php 50,000.00) and February 17, 2011 (Php 30,000.00).

Shortly thereafter, the law office filed a collection case on behalf of SPIDC against the respondent before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-11-68595, Branch 220.
On January 4, 2011, SPIDC further paid filing fees amounting to Php 185,146.00 and Php 277,594.00 to support the case.

On August 30, 2012, SPIDC received a copy of the RTC Order dated July 23, 2012, which dismissed the case against the respondent for failure to prosecute.
The dismissal resulted from the law office’s non-appearance to examine case records as directed by the RTC’s Order issued on January 12, 2012.
SPIDC alleged that an “Atty. Garcia” from the law office advised that a motion for reconsideration should be filed to contest the dismissal, though subsequently a motion to withdraw as counsel was received instead.
On October 19, 2012, the RTC granted the law office’s motion to withdraw, effectively terminating its representation in the case.

SPIDC, upon inquiry, was informed by “Atty. Castillo” that fees paid for services rendered in the collection case were not properly recorded and that the lawyers assigned to the case had resigned; the law office needed time to reconcile its records.
Seeking to remedy the situation, SPIDC engaged a new counsel, Atty. Aries B. Mirandilla, who filed a belated motion for reconsideration against the RTC’s dismissal on November 13, 2012.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on October 16, 2013, ruling that it was filed out of time.

SPIDC elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, contesting the RTC dismissal on the ground of alleged violation of substantive rights and abuse of discretion.
The CA, in resolutions dated May 30, 2014, and February 23, 2015, dismissed SPIDC’s petition for certiorari on the basis that dismissal for failure to prosecute constitutes a final order, appealable under Rule 41 rather than through certiorari under Rule 65.

Whether the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute by the RTC violated SPIDC’s substantive rights.

SPIDC argued that the RTC should have exercised liberality despite the alleged negligence of its law office in prosecuting the case.

Whether the procedural irregularity in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal under Rule 41 constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

SPIDC contended that even if there was counsel negligence, the client should not be deprived of his right to a remedy.
The respondent maintained that SPIDC’s error in the mode of appeal and failure to submit appropriate legal arguments rendered the petition ineffective and bound the petitioner to the acts of its counsel.