Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44100) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Francisco Lim Tupas and Ignacio Lim Tupas v. Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 89571, decided on February 6, 1991 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioners Francisco Lim Tupas and Ignacio Lim Tupas sought certiorari relief from this Court assailing a resolution of the Court of Appeals which dismissed their petition for review on account of tardiness. The controversy originated from a decision by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City that was served on petitioners on April 3, 1989. They filed a motion for reconsideration on April 17, 1989, which was denied by order dated May 3, 1989 and received by their counsel on May 9, 1989. Instead of filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the remaining one-day reglementary period (after deducting the days consumed by the motion for reconsideration), petitioners’ counsel lodged the petition only on May 23, 1989—fourteen days late—without seeking an extension of time. The Court of Appeal
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44100) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Chronology of Events
- April 3, 1989: Petitioners received a copy of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City decision.
- April 17, 1989: Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (14 days after receipt).
- May 3, 1989: RTC denied the motion for reconsideration.
- May 9, 1989: Petitioners’ counsel received the order denying reconsideration.
- May 23, 1989: Petitioners filed the petition for review with the Court of Appeals (14 days late; only one day remained of the 15-day reglementary period).
- Procedural Posture
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review as tardy.
- Petitioners sought certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (SC); the petition was denied on October 12, 1989.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the SC’s resolution on November 23, 1989; after pleadings (comment, reply, rejoinder), the SC denied the motion.
- Counsel’s Conduct and Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioners were represented by a highly credentialed lawyer (top law school graduate, bar examiner, law professor, seasoned practioner).
- Counsel failed to file the petition for review within the remaining one-day period and did not seek an extension (which would have been granted as a matter of course).
- Petitioners argued (a) denial of due process; (b) counsel’s neglect excusable; (c) equity demands relief. SC rejected these contentions.
Issues:
- Timeliness and Procedural Compliance
- Whether the petition for review was filed within the remaining reglementary period after denial of the motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the tardy appeal.
- Availability of Alternative Remedies
- Whether the SC may treat the late petition for review as a certiorari petition under Rule 65.
- Whether equitable considerations (excusable neglect, due process) justify relief despite procedural default.
- Counsel-Client Relationship
- Whether petitioners can disown their counsel’s mistakes and claim a due process violation.
- Whether counsel’s failure to file timely constitutes excusable neglect.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)