Case Summary (G.R. No. 147417)
Procedural Timeline
• 27 April 1998: Complaint for Enforcement of Contract and Damages with TRO/Preliminary Injunction filed.
• 15 May 1998: Antonio Hermano filed Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim.
• 17 January 2000: Hermano moved to dismiss or sever his case.
• 28 February 2000: RTC granted severance; Order received 21 March 2000.
• 23 March 2000: Petitioners filed motion for reconsideration; RTC denied it on 25 May 2000 (received 18 June 2000).
• 17 August 2000: Petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion.
• 19 October 2000 & 2 March 2001: CA dismissed petition and its motion for reconsideration for late filing.
• 8 July 2005: Supreme Court decision on certiorari under Rule 45.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Under the 1987 Constitution, judicial power vests in a Supreme Court and lower courts. Petitions for certiorari are governed by Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended), and review by certiorari in the Supreme Court follows Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue on Timeliness of the Rule 65 Petition
Whether petitioners’ filing on 17 August 2000 fell within the 60-day reglementary period from notice of the RTC’s denial of reconsideration (18 June 2000) under Section 4, Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC.
Amendment of Section 4, Rule 65 and Retroactive Application
Circular No. 39-98 (effective 1 September 1998) initially governed computation; A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (effective 1 September 2000), issued during the pendency of the CA petition, clarified that a timely motion for reconsideration interrupts the 60-day period, which recommences upon receipt of the denial. Being curative and procedural, the amendment applies retroactively to pending cases.
Computation of the 60-Day Period
Computing from 19 June 2000 (first excluded) to 17 August 2000 (last included) yields exactly 60 days. The SC held petitioners filed within the reglementary period and the CA erred in finding they filed on the 61st or 63rd day.
Decision on CA’s Dismissal Resolutions
The CA’s resolutions of 19 October 2000 and 2 March 2001 dismissing the petition and its motion for reconsideration are reversed and set aside for misapplication of the Rule 65 period.
Scope of Supreme Court Review
Instead of remanding to the Court of Appeals, the SC resolved the underlying Rule 65 petition on its merits to expedite final disposition.
Core Issue: Grave Abuse of Discretion in Severance
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners’ complaint against Hermano by severing his liability for separate adjudication.
Facts Underlying Severance Motion
Petitioners alleged Zescon Land induced them to sign a contract to sell five properties, and concurrently to sign two mortgages in favor of Hermano without receiving mortgage proceeds. Hermano later filed his own foreclosure suit (Civil Case No. Q-99-36914) and moved in the original case to sever or dismiss for misjoinder of causes under Rule 2, Section 6.
Rule on Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Section 5, Rule 2 allows permissive joinder of causes arising from the same transaction or relation and subject to jurisdiction
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 147417)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners Cristina Agraviador Aviso and spouses Victor and Milagros Perez entered into a Contract to Sell with Zescon Land, Inc., represented by Zenie Sales-Contreras, for five parcels of land for ₱19,104,000.
- Simultaneously, petitioners were induced to sign two mortgage deeds over the same properties in favor of respondent Hermano, each for ₱10,000,000, allegedly to facilitate payment under the Contract to Sell.
- Petitioners never intended to mortgage their lands to Hermano and received no proceeds from him; instead, Hermano discharged the first mortgage and obtained titles in his name.
- Fearful of foreclosure by Hermano, petitioners sought issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction and damages for alleged misrepresentation and contract enforcement.
Procedural History
- April 27, 1998: Petitioners filed Civil Case No. Q-98-34211 (Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for TRO/Injunction) before RTC Quezon City, Branch 224.
- May 15, 1998: Respondent Hermano filed Answer with compulsory counterclaim.
- February 19, 1999: Hermano instituted Civil Case No. Q-99-36914 (Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage) before RTC Branch 216.
- January 17, 2000: Hermano moved to dismiss or sever claims against him for misjoinder of causes of action.
- February 28, 2000: Trial court granted severance, dropping Hermano as defendant in Q-98-34211.
- March 21, 2000: Petitioners received the severance Order.
- March 23, 2000: Petitioners filed motion for reconsideration; denied May 25, 2000 and received June 18, 2000.
- August 17, 2000: Petitioners filed Rule 65 original action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.
- October 19, 2000: CA dismissed petition as filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period.
- March 2, 2001: CA denied motion for reconsideration, c