Case Digest (G.R. No. 85044)
Facts:
Macario Tamargo, Celso Tamargo and Aurelia Tamargo v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, The Hon. Ariston L. Rubio, Victor Bundoc, and Clara Bundoc, G.R. No. 85044, June 03, 1992, Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court.On 20 October 1982, ten‑year‑old Adelberto Bundoc shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle, causing injuries that resulted in her death. A civil complaint for damages (RTC, Branch 20, Vigan, Civil Case No. 3457‑V) was filed by petitioner Macario Tamargo (Jennifer’s adopting parent) and petitioners spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo (Jennifer’s natural parents) against respondents spouses Victor and Clara Bundoc, the natural parents with whom Adelberto was living at the time. A separate criminal information (Criminal Case No. 1722‑V) for homicide through reckless imprudence was filed against Adelberto; he was later acquitted and exempted from criminal liability for acting without discernment.
Prior to the shooting, on 10 December 1981, spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition to adopt Adelberto in Special Proceedings No. 0373‑T before the then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur; that adoption petition was granted on 18 November 1982, after the shooting. In their Answer in the civil case, respondents Bundoc asserted that the adopting Rapisura spouses were indispensable parties because, they argued, parental authority had shifted to the adopters as of the filing of the adoption petition. Petitioners countered that because Adelberto actually lived with his natural parents at the time of the incident, parental authority had not ceased by the mere filing or grant of the adoption petition.
The trial court, in a Decision dated 3 December 1987, dismissed petitioners’ complaint and ruled that the natural parents were not indispensable parties to the action. Petitioners received the Decision on 7 December 1987 and filed a motion for reconsideration on 14 December 1987 and a supplemental motion on 15 January 1988; both motions were denied on 18 April 1988 for failing to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court (notice of motion and hearing). Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on 28 April 1988, but the trial court dismissed the notice of appeal on 6 June 1988 as untimely, ruling it was filed beyond the 15‑day reglementary period.
Petitioners then sought relief from the Court of Appeals by a petition for mandamus and certiorari challenging the trial court’s Decision and the Orders denying their motions and dismissing their appeal; the Court of Appeals (C.A.‑G.R. No. SP‑15016) dismissed that petition on 6 September 1988, holding that petitioners had lost their right to appeal. In the present Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, petitioners challenged (1) whether they could pursue the instant Petition despite the alleged loss of the right to appeal, and (2) whether adop...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: May petitioners prosecute the present Petition for Review (and may the Court take cognizance) despite the Court of Appeals’ ruling that petitioners lost their right to appeal because their motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal were untimely or defective?
- Substantive: Can the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is concerned, be given retroactive effect so that adopting parents become indispensable parties in a civil action for damages arising from a tort committed by the adopted child while act...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)