G.R. No. 147417 - Spouses Perez vs. Hermano

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147417)

Petitioner’s Causes of Action and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed Civil Case No. Q‑98‑34211 alleging: (1) enforcement of a Contract to Sell with Zescon Land, Inc. for five parcels, (2) annulment or rescission of two mortgage deeds over the same parcels in favor of respondent Hermano, and (3) damages against all defendants. They sought injunctive relief (TRO/preliminary injunction) to prevent foreclosure and monetary damages including unearned profits.

Respondent Hermano’s Position and Counterclaims

Respondent Hermano filed an Answer with a compulsory counterclaim denying petitioners’ allegations. Separately, on 19 February 1999 he filed a judicial foreclosure of mortgage action against petitioner Aviso (Civil Case No. Q‑99‑36914, Branch 216, RTC Quezon City).

Procedural History — Motion to Dismiss/Sever and Trial Court Orders

On 17 January 2000 Hermano filed a “Motion with Leave to Dismiss the Complaint or Ordered Severed for Separate Trial” asserting misjoinder of causes of action under Rule 2, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The trial court granted the motion in an Order dated 28 February 2000, effectively dropping Hermano from Civil Case No. Q‑98‑34211 and indicating the foreclosure action was the proper forum for claims against him. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated 25 May 2000.

Procedural History — Petition for Certiorari and Court of Appeals Rulings

Petitioners filed a Rule 65 original action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals on 17 August 2000 assailing the trial court’s orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on 19 October 2000 for being filed beyond the reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65 (as amended), and subsequently denied motion for reconsideration on 2 March 2001. The CA computed that 63 days had elapsed from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration to the filing of the petition.

Timeliness Issue and Governing Procedural Rules

The decisive procedural question was whether the petition before the Court of Appeals was filed within the 60‑day reglementary period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended. Relevant authorities and notices included Circular No. 39‑98 (effective 1 September 1998) and the subsequent amendment A.M. No. 00‑2‑03‑SC (1 September 2000), which clarified that when a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed, the 60‑day period runs from notice of denial of the motion.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Timeliness

The Supreme Court treated the A.M. No. 00‑2‑03‑SC amendment as curative and retroactive in application to actions pending at the time of its passage, citing Narzoles v. NLRC and Javellana v. Presiding Judge Legarda. Applying Article 13, Civil Code (exclude first day, include last), the Court concluded that when computed correctly the petition filed on 17 August 2000 was filed on the sixtieth day following receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration on 18 June 2000, and therefore was timely. The CA’s dismissal for lateness was held to be reversible error.

Decision to Resolve Merits Instead of Remanding

Rather than remanding to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the merits of the petition originally filed in the CA to avoid further delay in disposition of the substantive issues.

Central Substantive Issue Presented

The core substantive issue was whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing (severing) the complaint against respondent Hermano on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action, thereby depriving petitioners of their asserted remedies against Hermano in the same action.

Factual Basis for Joinder According to Petitioners

Petitioners alleged that, contemporaneously with the Contract to Sell with Zescon Land, they were induced to sign other documents including a Deed of Absolute Sale for a lower consideration and two mortgage deeds in favor of Hermano, accompanied by notes and receipts for P10,000,000 each. They claimed they were misled by Sales‑Contreras into mortgaging the properties and did not receive the proceeds, and that Hermano stood to foreclose.

Legal Framework on Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action

The Court reiterated the doctrine on joinder of causes of action: Section 5, Rule 2 permits the joinder of causes of action that arise out of the same contract, transaction, or relation, subject to rules on jurisdiction, venue, and joinder of parties. Section 6, Rule 2 provides that misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal but allows severance. The Court emphasized liberal construction of joinder rules to avoid multiplicity of suits and to promote efficient adjudication.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Merits — Unity of Transaction and Common Questions

Examining petitioners’ complaint, the Su

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 147417)

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Challenge to the Court of Appeals’ Resolution dismissing petitioners’ original action for certiorari under Rule 65 for alleged late filing.
Challenge to the Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Primary substantive relief originally sought in the trial court: enforcement of contract and damages with prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction.

Parties, Dockets, and Tribunal Information

Petitioners: Cristina Agraviador Aviso; spouses Victor and Milagros Perez.
Respondent: Antonio Hermano.
Other defendants in the trial court case: Zescon Land, Inc.; Zenie Sales-Contreras (President of Zescon); Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele.
Trial court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 224 (presided by Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr.).
Civil Case No. in RTC Branch 224: Q-98-34211 (Enforcement of Contract and Damages with TRO/preliminary injunction).
Separate civil case filed by respondent Hermano: Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage, Civil Case No. Q-99-36914, raffled to RTC Branch 216.
Court of Appeals proceedings: petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the CA and dismissed by CA Resolutions dated 19 October 2000 and 02 March 2001.
Supreme Court appeal: G.R. No. 147417; reported at 501 Phil. 397; Decision dated 08 July 2005 (opinion penned by CHICO-NAZARIO, J.; concurrence by Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.).

Chronology of Key Dates and Procedural Events

27 April 1998: Petitioners filed the complaint (Civil Case No. Q-98-34211) before RTC Branch 224.
15 May 1998: Respondent Hermano filed Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim.
19 February 1999: Respondent Hermano filed judicial foreclosure case (Q-99-36914) in Branch 216.
17 January 2000: Respondent Hermano filed "Motion with Leave to Dismiss the Complaint or Ordered Severed for Separate Trial" before Branch 224.
28 February 2000: Trial court granted Hermano’s motion; Order severing/dismissing Hermano from complaint.
21 March 2000: Petitioners received the trial court’s 28 February 2000 Order.
23 March 2000: Petitioners filed motion for reconsideration in the trial court.
25 May 2000: Trial court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (Order dated 25 May 2000).
18 June 2000: Petitioners received the denial of their motion for reconsideration.
17 August 2000: Petitioners filed their petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals.
19 October 2000: Court of Appeals rendered first assailed Resolution dismissing the petition as filed beyond the reglementary period.
01 September 2000: Section 4, Rule 65 was amended anew by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (effective date as reflected in the source).
02 March 2001: Court of Appeals promulgated second assailed Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of its dismissal.
08 July 2005: Supreme Court promulgated decision reversing the CA and annulling RTC orders.

Trial Court Proceedings, Motions and Orders

Nature of plaintiffs’ pleadings: three causes of action in complaint — (1) enforcement of contract to sell with Zescon Land, Inc.; (2) annulment/rescission of two mortgage contracts said to have been signed simultaneously in favor of respondent Hermano; (3) damages against all defendants, and request for TRO/preliminary injunction to prevent foreclosure.
Petitioners’ allegations re the transactions: Contract to Sell for five parcels (total price P19,104,000.00) entered in November 1997; simultaneous presentation of other documents including a Deed of Absolute Sale and two mortgage deeds over same properties purportedly in favor of respondent Hermano, with accompanying notes and receipts for Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000) each; petitioners allegedly misled into signing mortgages and never received proceeds; respondent Hermano later responsible for discharging obligations under first mortgage and having titles released to himself; Hermano informed petitioners of intent to foreclose.
Respondent Hermano’s procedural move: filed motion arguing misjoinder of causes of action under Rule 2, Section 6 of the Rules of Court and sought dismissal or severance of claims against him because he had a pending judicial foreclosure action in Branch 216.
Trial court rulings:
- 28 February 2000 Order: granted Hermano’s motion; Hermano was dropped as a defendant in Civil Case No. Q-98-34211 on the ground he had filed a separate judicial foreclosure pending in Branch 216 and plaintiffs could assert claims against him in that foreclosure.
- 25 May 2000 Order: denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration; trial court found Hermano “had nothing to do with the transaction” between petitioners and Zescon and that the motion raised matters previously considered and passed upon by the court.

Court of Appeals’ Rulings and Rationale

Petition to the Court of Appeals: filed as an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 on 17 August 2000 imputing grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing complaint as against Hermano.
Court of Appeals’ first Resolution (19 October 2000): dismissed petition for certiorari on ground it was filed beyond the reglementary period pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended.
Court of Appeals’ computation and reasoning (as reflected in its second Resolution of 02 March 2001):
- Determined petitioners received the assailed Order on 21 March 2000 and filed their motion for reconsideration four days later.
- Petitioners received the denial of the motion for reconsideration on 18 June 2000.
- When the petition was filed on 17 August 2000, the Court of Appeals computed a total lapse of 63 days.
- Relied on A.M. No. 00-2-03-50 (amendment to Section 4) in holding that the assailed orders had attained finality and were beyond the power of the CA to review.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Principal legal assignment of error by petitioners: manifest and/or serious error by the Court of Appeals in computing the period within which petitioners filed their petition for certiorari and consequent grave abuse of discretion in appreciation of facts; petitioners contended the petition was filed within the 60-day reglementary period under the amended Section 4, Rule 65 and thus should have been given due course by the CA.

Applicable Rules on Period to File Rule 65 Petition and Their Amendments

Section 4, Rule 65 as in effect when petition was filed (Circular No. 39-98 effective 01 September 1998) — provisions excerpted in the source:
- Petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.
- If petitioner filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time, the period is interrupted; if the motion is denied, petitioner may file within remaining period but not less than five (5) days reckoned from notice of denial.
- No extension except for the most compelling reason and not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
Section 4, Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (01 September 2000) — provisions excerpted in the source:
- Petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution.
- In ca
...continue reading