Case Digest (G.R. No. 196765)
Facts:
Francis M. Zosa, Nora M. Zosa and Manuel M. Zosa, Jr. v. Consilium, Inc., G.R. No. 196765, September 19, 2018, the Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, CJ., writing for the Court.
On January 17, 2001, petitioners Francis M. Zosa, Nora M. Zosa and Manuel M. Zosa, Jr. (the "Zosas") filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City, against Rosario Paypa, Rollyben R. Paypa and Rubi R. Paypa seeking declaration of nullity of a deed of sale and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T‑113390 and quieting of title. During the action, Consilium, Inc. (the "Intervenor" or "Consilium") was permitted to intervene on January 29, 2003, alleging it purchased the subject property from the Paypas on November 23, 2000 for P1,585,100.00.
In a Decision dated September 27, 2007, the RTC ruled for the Zosas, declaring the deed of sale void and ordering cancellation of TCT No. T‑113390; counterclaims were dismissed. Consilium filed a Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2007, alleging receipt of the RTC decision on October 10, 2007, but paid the appellate docket fee only on October 31, 2007 — six days after October 25, 2007, the last day to perfect the appeal. The Zosas opposed the Notice of Appeal as filed out of time.
The RTC denied due course to Consilium’s Notice of Appeal in an Order dated January 15, 2008. Consilium moved for reconsideration on February 7, 2008 and set a hearing (per counsel’s initial plan) beyond the ten‑day limit prescribed by Section 5, Rule 15, but the RTC reset and then, in an Order dated March 3, 2008, treated the motion as a "mere scrap of paper" for failure to comply with the ten‑day notice requirement; a clarifying Order of April 2, 2008 reiterated that a motion with a fatally defective notice is pro forma and not curable by subsequent action.
Consilium petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) by certiorari under Rule 65. In a Decision dated November 30, 2010, the CA granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC Orders of January 15 and April 2, 2008, and directed the RTC to give due course to Consilium’s Notice of Appeal; a subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by Resolution dated April 8, 2011. Consilium then sought relief from the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA’s reversal and raising four assignments of error concerning (1) the RTC’s treatment of the motion f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not acting on Consilium’s motion for reconsideration filed in violation of Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not giving due course to Consilium’s Notice of Appeal on the ground that the appellate docket fee was paid only six days after the reglementary period?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in treating the forgetfulness of Consilium’s counsel’s clerk to pay the docket fee as a sufficient reason to liberally apply the rules on perfection of appeal?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)