Case Summary (G.R. No. 167471)
Motion for Extension, Filing of Memorandum, and RTC Dismissal
Respondent filed on 3 June 2003 a Motion for Extension of Time (five days) based on counsel’s illness, staff unavailability caused by storm/flood, and technical problems with computers. That motion omitted a required notice of hearing. The motion was not acted upon. Respondent then filed the memorandum on 9 June 2003, six days after the expiration of the 15-day period. On 19 June 2003 the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to timely file the memorandum and relied on strict compliance with reglementary periods as necessary to prevent needless delays.
RTC Denials and Subsequent Grant of Immediate Execution
After the dismissal, petitioner moved for immediate execution and respondent moved for reconsideration. The RTC denied both motions on 31 July 2003, finding the extension motion defective for failure to include a notice of hearing and treating such motion as a “worthless piece of paper” not subject to court action under Rule 15 §4–5 jurisprudence. The RTC further noted that a motion not acted upon is deemed denied. Subsequently, on reconsideration (27 August 2003), the RTC granted the Motion for Immediate Execution, invoking Section 21, Rule 70, and distinguishing the cited authority as applicable only when an appellate court affirms a MeTC decision in its appellate capacity.
Court of Appeals Certiorari and Relief Granted
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals contesting the RTC’s dismissal of the appeal. The CA granted certiorari on 17 August 2004, nullified the RTC’s 19 June 2003 and 31 July 2003 Orders, reinstated the appeal, admitted respondent’s memorandum, and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. The CA viewed the dismissal and the denial to entertain the extension motion as grave abuse given the circumstances.
Scope and Appropriateness of the Remedy (Certiorari)
Petitioner challenged the CA’s assumption of jurisdiction by arguing that certiorari was improper and that the correct remedy was appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the remedy and noted that an order dismissing an appeal is itself unappealable under the provisions the parties cited and that where a judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may seek relief by Rule 65 (i.e., certiorari). The Supreme Court found respondent’s invocation of certiorari to be proper under the circumstances, as the RTC’s acts were subject to correction by extraordinary writ when an appeal was not available.
Verification and Forum-Shopping Challenge
Petitioner argued that the CA petition should be dismissed for defective verification and certification against forum shopping (typographical and self-referential errors in the verification). The Supreme Court treated verification defects as formal and not necessarily fatal: the objective of verification is to assure truthfulness and discourage forum shopping. The Court found the defects to be typographical and not indicative of bad faith or an intent to circumvent verification requirements; hence the petition should not be dismissed on that ground.
Notice of Hearing Requirement and the Effect of its Omission
The central legal issue was whether the omission of a notice of hearing in a Motion for Extension of Time rendered the motion a “worthless piece of paper” (i.e., no effect) and justified the dismissal of the appeal. The Court reiterated the mandatory character of Rule 15 §4’s notice requirement and the general rule that a motion without notice is pro forma and does not toll reglementary periods. The rationale for requiring notice is rooted in natural justice: the adverse party must have opportunity, and time, to study and oppose the motion; the three-day rule prevents surprise.
Substantial Compliance, Suspension of Rules, and Consideration of Merits
Notwithstanding the general rule, the Supreme Court applied equitable and practical considerations. It enumerated factors that may warrant the suspension of procedural rules: (a) existence of special or compelling circumstances, (b) merits of the case, (c) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault of the party seeking relief, (d) lack of evidence that the review sought is frivolous or dilatory, and (e) absence of unjust prejudice to the opposing party. The Court found elements (c), (d), and (e) present: the extension request preceded expiration; the memorandum was filed within the requested extension period; the justification (counsel’s illness, storm/flood, and computer failure) was not shown to be schemed for delay; and petitioner did not show prejudice. The Court emphasized that substantive justice and resolution on merits should prevail over technicality where substantial justice is served, and that motions for extension are often ex parte procedural requests where notice is not strictly necessary.
Immediate Execution: Applicability of Rule 70 §§19 and 21
The Court scrutinized the legal basis for immediate execution pending appeal. Section 19, Rule 70 applies to judgments rendered by municipal courts and requires that to stay execution a defendant must perfect appeal, post a supersedeas bond approved by the MT C, and periodically deposit rentals. The Court observed that execution pending appeal was premature because respondent had already filed a supersedeas bond and paid the current month’s rental. Petitioner relied on Section 21, Rule 70, but the Court clarified that §21 applies when an RTC renders judgment in its appellate capacity (i.e., when the RTC is acting as an appellate court affirming a MeTC decision). Here, the RTC’s order was a dismissal based on technical grounds, not an appellate substantive disposition; therefore §21 was inapposite and execution pending appeal could not be justified on that provision.
Inhibition Claim Against Court of Appeals Justices
Petitioner asserted that CA justices should
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167471)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 543 Phil. 232, Third Division; G.R. No. 167471; Decision promulgated February 05, 2007.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento seeking nullification of the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 79001 (Emerita Zaratan v. Hon. Ramon A. Cruz, et al.), dated 17 August 2004, which had reversed and set aside RTC Orders dated 19 June 2003 and 31 July 2003 in Civil Case No. Q-03-49437.
- Relief sought at the Supreme Court: reversal of the Court of Appeals decision and reinstatement of the RTC orders dismissing respondent’s appeal and denying relief sought by respondent.
Factual Background
- On 2 September 2002, petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento filed an ejectment case against respondent Emerita Zaratan in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 36 (Civil Case No. 29109).
- On 31 March 2003, the MeTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner ordering among others: monthly rentals of P3,500.00 from August 1, 2002 until defendant vacates; attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 plus P1,500.00 per court appearance; and costs of suit.
- Respondent filed notice of appeal; the case was raffled to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 223, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-03-49437.
Notice of Appealed Case and Memorandum Deadline
- In the Notice of Appealed Case, the RTC directed respondent to submit her memorandum under Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court; petitioner to file a reply memorandum within 15 days from receipt.
- Respondent’s counsel received the notice on 19 May 2003, giving him until 3 June 2003 to file the memorandum.
- A registry return receipt dated May 12, 2003 appears in the record (noted in the RTC’s order).
Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum
- On 3 June 2003, respondent’s counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time of five days to file the memorandum, citing as reasons:
- Counsel’s illness for one week;
- Lack of staff due to storm and flood;
- Grounding of computers because wirings got wet.
- The Motion for Extension did not contain a notice of hearing as required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
- The Motion remained unacted upon by the RTC.
Filing of Memorandum and RTC Dismissal (19 June 2003)
- Respondent filed her memorandum on 9 June 2003, six days after the 3 June 2003 deadline and within the five-day extension sought but ungranted.
- The RTC, on 19 June 2003, dismissed the appeal for failure to file the memorandum within the 15-day period mandated by Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The RTC applied precedent emphasizing strict compliance with reglementary periods (citing Legaspi-Santos v. Court of Appeals; FJR Garments Industries v. Court of Appeals; Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals).
- The RTC declared the appeal dismissed and rendered moot defendant-appellant’s application for injunctive relief.
Post-Dismissal Motions Before the RTC (June–July 2003)
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Immediate Execution (recorded June 23, 2003).
- Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
- Both motions were denied by the RTC on 31 July 2003. The 31 July 2003 Order, inter alia:
- Held the Motion for Extension was properly not acted upon because it lacked notice of hearing as required by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5, and thus was a “worthless piece of paper” the court had no authority to act upon (citing Gozon v. Court of Appeals and Orosa v. Court of Appeals).
- Reiterated that a motion not acted upon in due time is deemed denied.
- Ruled that execution of a judgment in an ejectment case must generally be sought with the inferior court which rendered the judgment, and an appellate court cannot decree execution of an affirming decision except when it grants execution pending appeal (citing City of Manila v. Court of Appeals; Sy v. Romero).
RTC Reconsideration (27 August 2003) and Granting of Immediate Execution
- On 27 August 2003, the RTC reconsidered its prior position in part:
- Granted petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Execution pursuant to Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, reasoning Section 21 applies where the RTC’s judgment is immediately executory and the case was distinguishable from City of Manila and Sy v. Romero because those cases involved finality on the merits.
- Denied respondent’s Motion for Clarification, noting the issues raised were already addressed in the July 31 Order.
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
- Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC orders that dismissed her appeal and denied relief.
- The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 17 August 2004, granted the petition:
- Nullified and set aside the RTC Orders dated 19 June 2003 and 31 July 2003.
- Ordered reinstatement of respondent’s appeal.
- Admitted respondent’s appeal memorandum and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
Subsequent Motions at the Court of Appeals and Denial
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (13 September 2004) and a Motion for Inhibition of the Eighth Division justices (20 September 2004).
- Both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals on 10 March 2005 for lack of merit.
Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner presented the following principal contentions to the Supreme Court:
- Whether respondent’s petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals should have been dismissed as improper.
- Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent’s motion for extension.
- Whether Section 19 of Rule 70, not Section 21, applies to immediate execution in ejectment proceedings.
- Whether the Court of Appeals justices should have inhibited themselves from proceeding with the case due to alleged bias and partiality.
- Restated: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in granting the Writ of Certiorari.
Supreme Court: Procedural Threshold — Appropriateness of Certiorari
- The Supreme Court examined whether certiorari in the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy after the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the memorandum.
- The Court observed that dismissal of an app