Case Summary (G.R. No. 89571)
Key Dates
• April 3, 1989 – Petitioners received RTC decision
• April 17, 1989 – Motion for reconsideration filed (14th day)
• May 3, 1989 – RTC denied motion for reconsideration
• May 9, 1989 – Counsel received denial order
• May 23, 1989 – Petition for review filed (tardy by 14 days)
• February 6, 1991 – Supreme Court resolution
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Rule 45 (Certiorari) and Rule 65 (Certiorari) of the Rules of Court
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 22(b) and Interim Rules on Appeals to the Court of Appeals
Factual Background
The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City rendered an adverse decision, received by petitioners on April 3, 1989. A timely motion for reconsideration was filed on April 17, 1989, and was denied on May 3, 1989. Petitioners’ counsel received the denial on May 9, 1989, leaving a one-day window (May 10, 1989) to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Instead, the petition was filed on May 23, 1989.
Procedural History
A petition for certiorari under Rule 45 was filed with the Supreme Court alleging reversible error by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal as tardy. The Court denied the petition by resolution on October 12, 1989. A motion for reconsideration followed, accompanied by comments, a reply, and a rejoinder.
Issue
Whether the petition for review before the Court of Appeals was timely filed and whether the petitioners’ right to due process was violated by dismissal for tardiness.
Court’s Analysis
- Filing Period. Under Section 22(b) of BP 129 and Interim Rules, the period to file a petition for review runs from receipt of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Here, petitioners had until May 10, 1989, but failed to file until May 23, 1989.
- Extension of Time. Petitioners did not seek a mandatory extension, which would have been granted as a matter of course.
- Substitution with Rule 65. A petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal; Rule 65’s “reasonable time” provision does not cure an untimely petition for review.
- Due Process Claim. Failure to comply with procedural rules forfeits the right to appeal; enforcement of such rules does not violate due process.
- Counsel Negligence. Clients are bound by the acts and mistakes of their counsel. The record shows counsel was a veteran practitioner whose neglect cannot be excused as “honest error” or “excusable neglect.”
- Equity. Equity cannot override clear procedural mandates; abstract equity arguments must yield to positive procedural rules.
Legal Principles
• Rules of procedure ensure orderly justice and protect substantive rights equally under due process
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 89571)
Procedural Posture
- Petitioners Francisco Lim Tupas and Ignacio Lim Tupas sought certiorari relief under Rule 45 in G.R. No. 89571.
- The Supreme Court initially denied the petition by Resolution dated October 12, 1989, for failure to show reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ May 31, 1989 resolution.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on November 23, 1989; the Court required and received a Comment, followed by a Reply and rejoinder.
- After full briefing, the Court considered the timeliness of the petition for review and the procedural conduct of petitioners’ counsel.
Factual Background
- April 3, 1989: Petitioners received the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City’s adverse decision.
- April 17, 1989: Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (within 14 days of receipt).
- May 3, 1989: RTC denied the motion for reconsideration; counsel received notice on May 9, 1989.
- Remaining reglementary period to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals expired on May 10, 1989.
- May 23, 1989: Counsel filed the petition for review—thirteen days after the deadline—rendering it tardy.
Issue
- Whether the petitioners’ counsel timely filed the petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the remaining 15-day reglementary period after denial of the motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the Supreme Court should grant relief based on counsel’s mistakes, invoking certiorari under Rule 65 or equitable c