G.R. No. 145169 - Siena Realty Corp. vs. Gal-lang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145169)

Key Dates

October 20, 1999: RTC issued an Order denying petitioners’ counsel’s Notice of Withdrawal and denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint.
November 8, 1999: Petitioners allegedly received copy of the October 20, 1999 Order.
November 17, 1999: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the October 20, 1999 Order.
March 23, 2000: RTC denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration (order).
April 8, 2000: Petitioners allegedly received copy of the March 23, 2000 Order.
June 7, 2000: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari (before the Court of Appeals).
June 20, 2000: Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition as filed late.
July 10, 2000: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.
August 1, 2000: Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC approving amendments to Section 4, Rule 65 (effective September 1, 2000).
September 13, 2000: Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration (again dismissing the petition for certiorari with finality).
Supreme Court decision: Petition denied (Supreme Court affirmed denial).

Applicable Law and Rules Cited

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), Rule 65 (petition for certiorari), Rule 41 Sec. 1 (appeal from final orders).
Rules on Evidence: Rule 129 Sec. 1 (mandatory judicial notice).
A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (August 1, 2000): amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 (effective September 1, 2000) modifying the time computation for filing petitions for certiorari when a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed.

Procedural History

Petitioners’ complaint in the RTC was dismissed on motion of the private respondent. The RTC issued an Order (October 20, 1999) denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal. Petitioners filed another Motion for Reconsideration on November 17, 1999; the RTC denied that motion in an order dated March 23, 2000, which petitioners allegedly received on April 8, 2000. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals on June 7, 2000. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as untimely (June 20, 2000), concluding the petition was filed nine days late. Petitioners sought reconsideration with the CA (filed July 10, 2000). After the Supreme Court promulgated amendments to Rule 65 (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC) to take effect September 1, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on September 13, 2000, relying on the pre‑amendment interpretation of Rule 65. Petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Court of Appeals’ Reasoning and Rulings Below

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari as filed out of time. It computed the sixty-day period under the pre-amendment Rule 65 as running from receipt of the October 20, 1999 Order, allowing interruption by the timely filing of a Motion for Reconsideration but not recommencing the sixty-day period from the denial of that motion. Applying that pre-amendment rule and the parties’ asserted dates of receipt, the CA concluded petitioners had until May 29, 2000 to file, but filed on June 7, 2000—nine days late—and therefore dismissed the petition. On motion for reconsideration, the CA reaffirmed its analysis and denied relief, citing the pre-amendment second paragraph of Section 4, Rule 65 (as amended by an earlier circular) to support its interpretation that the sixty-day period is counted from the date of receipt of the questioned order but is merely interrupted by a timely motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners’ Argument to the Supreme Court

Petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals should have taken judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s amendatory resolution (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC) that modified Section 4, Rule 65, and that, under the amended rule, the sixty-day period is counted from notice of denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration or new trial. They argued the amendment was procedural, took effect September 1, 2000, and had retroactive application to pending matters such as their CA petition for certiorari. They asserted that the CA’s failure to take judicial notice of the amendatory rule amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Judicial Notice and Retroactivity of Amendatory Rule

The Supreme Court agreed with petitioners that the Court of Appeals should have taken mandatory judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s own amendatory resolution under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence. That rule requires courts to take judicial notice of the official acts of the judicial department of the Philippines. The Court observed that the amendatory rule is procedural in nature and did not need an express statement of retroactivity to apply to pending cases; accordingly, the CA should have recognized A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC when disposing of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration filed after issuance of the amendatory resolution. The Supreme Court thus found petitioners’ contention well-taken as to the CA’s failure to take judicial notice.

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Proper Remedy and Finality of the RTC Order

Notwithstanding the foregoing finding on judi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 145169)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, challenging the September 13, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 59096.
The petition to the Supreme Court alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in issuing its September 13, 2000 Resolution, specifically for failing to take judicial notice of the Supreme Court resolution A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court observed that the petition filed was one under Rule 45, but the subject resolution should have been challenged by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; on that ground alone the petition was denied due course.
The Supreme Court proceeded to address the petition on its merits despite the jurisdictional/formal defect and ultimately denied the petition.

Factual Background

Petitioners are Siena Realty Corporation, as represented by Lydia Co Hao and Lilibeth Manlugon.
Private respondent is Anita Co Ng in trust for Rockefeller Ng; respondent judge is Hon. Lolita Gal-lang, Presiding Judge of Branch 44, RTC of Manila; the Court of Appeals, Special 13th Division is also a respondent.
A trial court entered an order dismissing petitioners' complaint. An October 20, 1999 Order denied petitioners' counsel’s Notice of Withdrawal and denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal order.
Petitioners received a copy of the October 20, 1999 Order on November 8, 1999.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on November 17, 1999.
The trial court issued a March 23, 2000 Order denying the motion for reconsideration; petitioners received that March 23, 2000 Order on April 8, 2000.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on June 7, 2000 (allegedly on the 60th day from their receipt of the March 23, 2000 Order).
The Court of Appeals, by Resolution dated June 20, 2000, dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari as filed out of time, holding the petition was filed nine (9) days late (deadline May 29, 2000).
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ June 20, 2000 Order on July 10, 2000.
The Supreme Court issued, in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (Reglamentary Period to File Petitions for Certiorari and Petition for Review on Certiorari), a Resolution dated August 1, 2000, approving an amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; the amendment took effect on September 1, 2000.
The Court of Appeals, acting on petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of its June 20, 2000 Order, denied the motion by Resolution dated September 13, 2000, and dismissed the petition with finality.
Petitioners thereafter brought the case to the Supreme Court via the petition now at bar.

Court of Appeals’ June 20, 2000 Dismissal — Basis and Chronology as Recited by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined petitioners had until May 29, 2000 to file the Petition for Certiorari.
The Court of Appeals’ chronology and reasoning:
- Petitioners received the October 20, 1999 Order on November 8, 1999.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 20, 1999 Order on November 17, 1999.
- Petitioners received the March 23, 2000 Order denying their motion for reconsideration on April 8, 2000.
- The petition for certiorari was filed on June 7, 2000, which the Court of Appeals characterized as nine (9) days late.
On that basis, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari for being belatedly filed.

The Supreme Court Circular and Amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 — Texts as Presented in the Record

The Supreme Court recorded the original (prior) text of Section 4, Rule 65 as amended per Supreme Court Circular dated July 21, 1998 (as it appeared in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC materials):
- "SECTION 4. Where petition filed. The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days."
The amendment approved by the Supreme Court (effective September 1, 200
...continue reading