Lasam V PNB (G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018) : Facts

LASAM V PNB
[ G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018 ]
FACTS:
1. January 22, 2013: Dr. Fe Lasam (Lasam) filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment,
Order, or Other Proceedings before the RTC.
2. Lasam alleged that:
a. on January 14, 2003, she filed a Complaint for Annulment of Mortgage against
Philippine National Bank (PNB);
b. on the February 23, 2010 hearing of the case for initial reception of evidence
where she was present, her former counsel failed to appear, as a consequence, the
RTC issued an Order dismissing the civil case for failure to prosecute and for
failure of her counsel to appear;
c. her former counsel filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion where she explained
her failure to attend the hearing, but the RTC denied the same (April 2010 Order)
as the motion was not seasonably filed;
d. on May 24, 2010, her former counsel sought the reconsideration of the order, but
the RTC denied the same (July 2010 Order) for being in the nature of a second
motion for reconsideration.
3. Lasam further alleged that her former counsel filed a Petition for Certiorari before the
Court of Appeals (CA) but the same was dismissed.
4. September 2012: An Urgent Motion for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction was also filed, however, the CA (November 2012
Resolution) stated that it could no longer act on the urgent motion in view of this RTC's
issuance of a Resolution (May 28, 2012) and an Entry of Judgment.
5. The Entry of Judgment stated that RTC's February 22, 2012 Resolution, denying the
petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution in the CA, had
become final and executory and had been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments
on May 3, 2012.
6. Lasam claimed that she only learned of the finality of the February 23, 2010 Order after
she consulted a different lawyer.
7. She averred that she was seriously deprived of her right to present her case due to the
gross negligence and ignorance of her former counsel who caused the dismissal of her
complaint for annulment of mortgage due to her failure to appear on the hearing of the
case, her failure to file the motion for reconsideration on time; and for availing the wrong
remedy by filing a second motion for reconsideration which eventually led to the finality
of the February 23, 2010 Order. Thus, she was prompted to file the petition for relief
from the February 23, 2010 Order of the RTC within 60 days from her knowledge of its
finality.
8. RTC Ruling: In its assailed March 18, 2013 Order, the RTC dismissed outright Lasam's
petition for relief and her MR in the May 2013 Order.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE RTC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED
OUTRIGHT LASAM'S PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, ORDER OR OTHER
PROCEEDINGS AND
DENIED HER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
HELD: The petition must be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Direct recourse to the Supreme Court was improperly resorted. The instant petition must be
dismissed for failure to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.
“although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom
of choice of court forum”
“A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs
should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition…It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands
upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket.”
There is nothing in the instant petition which would justify direct recourse to this Court.
Furthermore, the Court is convinced that the RTC, in issuing the assailed orders, did not
commit any grave abuse of discretion.
Petition for relief from the order of the RTC was filed out of time. The petition is the proper
remedy of a party seeking to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a court whenever he
was unjustly deprived of a hearing, was prevented from taking an appeal, or a judgment or final
order
entered because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
As an equitable remedy, strict compliance with the applicable reglementary periods for its filing
must be satisfactorily shown. A petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the
part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle
that a judgment, order, or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain finality in order to put an
end to litigation.
As such, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the petition was filed within its
reglementary periods, otherwise, the petition may be dismissed outright.
(di ko na sinama discussion sa Rule 38 kasi wala pa tayo don??)

Lasam V PNB (G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018) : Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lasam V PNB (G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018) : Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lasam V PNB (G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018) : Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LASAM V PNB

[ G.R. No. 207433, December 05, 2018 ]

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RTC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

HELD: The petition must be dismissed for utter lack of merit.

(di ko na sinama discussion sa Rule 38 kasi wala pa tayo don??)

You might also like