SPOUSES ALEXANDER SAN GABRIEL AND MYRNA GO SAN GABRIEL, PETITIONERS, V. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, BRANCH 264, HON. JUDGE LEONCIO M. JANOLO, JR., SPOUSES ARTURO J. DE GUZ…
BRUSELAS, JR. J.:
“WHEREFORE, defendant’s Notice of Appeal is hereby DENIED.
The clerk of court is hereby ordered to enter this Court’s decision dated June 22, 2010 in this Court’s book of entries of judgment.
In accordance with section 1, rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court grants the plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
The Register of Deeds of Baguio City is hereby ordered to cause the cancellation of transfer certificate of title no. T-93190 issued to the spouses Alexander San Gabriel and Myrna Go San Gabriel and to issue a new one in the name of the spouses Arturo J. de Guzman and Josefina S. de Guzman.
SO ORDERED.”[3]
Likewise assailed is the Order[4] dated 24 May 2012 which denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The pertinent facts and the antecedent proceedings in this case are as follows:
On 20 July 2003, the respondents Spouses Arturo J. De Guzman and Josefina S. De Guzman (“Spouses De Guzman”) obtained a loan from the petitioners Spouses Alexander San Gabriel and Myrna Go San Gabriel (“Spouses San Gabriel”) in the amount of P500,000.00, allegedly payable within one (1) year with a monthly interest rate of 5%. To secure the loan, the Spouses De Guzman mortgaged[5] in favor of the Spouses San Gabriel a parcel of land situated in Baguio City. The said land is covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2402 and registered in the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City.
Because Arturo De Guzman failed to settle his obligation in the amount of P1,085,000.00 despite demand from the Spouses San Gabriel, the latter filed on 31 March 2006 a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure[6] of the real estate mortgage with the RTC of Baguio City which was docketed as Foreclosure Case No. 429- 06-B (“foreclosure case”). For their part, the Spouses De Guzman filed a complaint[7] with the RTC of Pasig City for annulment of the real estate mortgage[8], accounting with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The said case was docketed as Civil Case No. 70828 (“annulment case”).
In the foreclosure case, the property was sold at a public auction and Alexander San Gabriel emerged as the highest bidder. The Spouses De Guzman subsequently amended their complaint to include the annulment of the foreclosure sale and the certificate of sale.[9] The Spouses San Gabriel filed their answer to the amended complaint.
Meanwhile, an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed by the Spouses San Gabriel in the foreclosure case which was granted by the RTC of Baguio City and the issuance of a writ of possession was accordingly ordered.[10] The one-year period had lapsed but the Spouses De Guzman failed to redeem the subject property. Consequently, a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-93190 covering the subject property was issued in favor of the Spouses San Gabriel.
On 22 June 2010, the RTC of Pasig City upheld the validity of the real estate mortgage and modified the interest rate but the foreclosure proceedings, auction sale and certificate of sale conducted and issued by the Office of the City Sheriff of Baguio City on 14 June 2006 were declared null and void.[11] The said decision was received by the Spouses San Gabriel on 06 July 2010.
A motion for reconsideration dated 21 July 2010[12] was filed by the Spouses San Gabriel and asserted that the trial court erred in ruling that the 5% monthly interest rate stipulated in the real estate mortgage was usurious and unconscionable. They further asserted that the annulment of the foreclosure sale and certificate of sale had no basis. The said motion was received by the RTC on 28 July 2010 as can be gleaned from the date of receipt stamped on the upper portion of the motion[13]. In the 17 January 2011 order of the RTC, the motion of the Spouses San Gabriel was denied for lack of merit. The trial court ratiocinated that the arguments in support of the motion had been discussed and passed upon by the court. The said order was received by the Spouses San Gabriel on 21 January 2011.
Consequently, on 31 January 2011 the Spouses San Gabriel filed a notice of appeal[14] with the RTC to elevate their case to us. An opposition[15] to the notice of appeal and motion to execute judgment dated 16 September 2010 was filed by the Spouses De Guzman and asseverated that the 22 June 2010 decision of the RTC was received by the Spouses San Gabriel on 06 July 2010 but their motion for reconsideration was belatedly filed on 28 July 2010 or 22 days after the receipt of the decision of the RTC. Because the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days, the Spouses De Guzman claimed that the Spouses San Gabriel had no time left to file their notice of appeal. The Spouses De Guzman thus insisted that the 22 June 2010 decision of the RTC of Pasig City consequently became final and executory.
The Spouses San Gabriel filed a reply[16] and countered that their motion for reconsideration was timely filed, by registered mail, on 21 July 2010 and was received by the RTC on 28 July 2010. They argued that the date of mailing should be considered as the date of filing; thus, the said motion was filed within the reglementary period. Upon receipt of the 17 January 2011 order which denied their motion for reconsideration, the Spouses San Gabriel still had a fresh period of 15 days within which to file their notice of appeal. Because their notice of appeal was filed on 31 January 2011 or 10 days after the receipt of the order, the Spouses San Gabriel claimed that their appeal was timely filed.
On 16 December 2011, the RTC dismissed the notice of appeal of the Spouses San Gabriel. It ratiocinated as follows:
“To prove that they filed their motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, defendants presented a Certification dated April 11, 2011 from Makati Central Post Office which states that the defendants, through their former counsel of record, Ponce Enrile Reyes & Manalastas, mailed the motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2010 under mail matter with registry receipt no. 3677. The mail matter referred to in the Certification is not mail matter corresponding to the motion for reconsideration in the affidavit of service. The affidavit of service attached to the motion for reconsideration received by this Court on July 28, 2010 states that the motion for reconsideration was filed by the defendants via registered mail under mail matter covered by registry receipt number 141, the number issued by Pasig Central Postal office.
xxx xxx xxx
The Court also takes note of the observations made by the plaintiffs that the second copy of the motion for reconsideration mailed by the defendants did not contain any proof of service to the plaintiffs’ counsel nor any affidavit of service. A clear violation of the provisions of Section 4, Section 11 and Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure was committed herein.
Henceforth, the second copy of defendants’ motion for reconsideration mailed thru Makati Central Post Office cannot be considered as filed and may be disregarded, the first copy being complete in requirements.
Likewise, this Court agrees with the observations of the plaintiffs that it is illogical for the defendants to return all the way to Makati Central Post Office after mailing the plaintiff’s copy of the motion for reconsideration in Pasig Central Post Office which is located within the Pasig City Hall Compound. And although the Pasig City Hall of Justice is also within said compound RTC Branch 264 never stayed there. This Court used to stay in Rizal Capitol Compound at Shaw Blvd., before moving at Santolan Road, San Juan City. Common sense dictates that the defendants’ process server would complete the mailing of all copies of the Motion for Reconsideration in one post office, with this case, Pasig Central Post Office, more so because mailing was resorted to by the defendants for lack of material time, as stated in the explanation in the Motion for Reconsideration.
Given the discrepancy of the evidence presented by the defendants to prove that they filed, via registered mail their motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2010, this Court is faced with accepting the veracity of the Certification dated April 11, 2011 issued by the Pasig Central Post Office presented by the plaintiffs that it has no record of any matter mailed under registry receipt no. 141 on July 21, 2010.
This Court finds, and so holds, that the Certification dated April 11, 2011 issued by the Pasig Central Post Office is more credible than the Certification issued by Makati Central Post Office because the Certification dated April 11, 2011 issued by the Pasig Central Post Office corresponds to the declaration made by Jonathan Mioten that he filed the motion for reconsideration via registered mail under mail matter bearing registry receipt no. 141 at the Pasig Central Post Office.”
Aggrieved with the foregoing disquisition, the Spouses San Gabriel moved for the reconsideration[17] of the order of the RTC. Their counsel’s messenger, Mr. Jonathan Mioten, stated that he was not able to mail the subject motion for reconsideration at the Pasig City Post Office after he found out that Branch 264, RTC of Pasig City was sitting at San Juan City and not at the Pasig City Hall of Justice. Consequently, he returned to his office in Makati City and mailed the subject motion at the Makati Post Office. The Spouses San Gabriel asserted that the registry receipt number 141 was actually an internal control number pre-assigned by their counsel’s law office for the subject motion. When the same was deposited with the Makati Post Office for mailing, the said post office modified the registry receipt number from 141 to 3677[18]. By inadvertence, Mr. Mioten failed to change the registry receipt number in his Affidavit of Service[19]. Therefore, they claimed that the subject motion was filed on 21 July 2010 through registered mailed to the RTC, Branch 264 of Pasig City.
In the 24 May 2012 order of the RTC, the motion of the Spouses San Gabriel was denied for lack of compelling reason to set aside its 16 December 2011 order. Prejudiced by the ruling, the Spouses San Gabriel come to us via this petition for certiorari which ascribes to the respondent RTC of Pasig City the sole act of grave abuse of discretion, to wit:
“PUBLIC RESPONDENT RTC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETON AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL”
In support of the instant petition, the petitioners raised the following grounds:
(a) The registry receipt and the affidavit of service are the conclusive proof of the filing of the subject motion for reconsideration;
(b) The Bureau of Posts return card shows that the subject motion was posted for mailing to the Pasig City RTC on 21 July 2010 and was actually received by the court on 28 July 2010;
(c) The mailing envelope which contained the subject motion was stamped by the Makati City Post Office as having been mailed on 21 July 2010. The same mailing envelope had a registry receipt no. 3677 confirming the petitioners’ claim that the post office changed the pre-arranged registry receipt no. from 141 to 3677.
(d) When the Spouses De Guzman failed to raise the issue on the timeliness of the filing of the subject motion for reconsideration after it was filed, they are barred by laches from raising the same during the appeal stage.
Simply stated, the issue in this case is whether or not the Spouses San Gabriel’s notice of appeal was properly dismissed by the RTC of Pasig City on the ground that the subject motion for reconsideration was filed out of time.
The Spouses San Gabriel contend that the evidence they presented clearly shows that the subject motion for reconsideration was timely filed within the 15-day reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court and that the RTC gravely erred in disregarding the Certification[20] dated 11 April 2011 issued by the Makati Central Post Office which supported the timeliness of the subject motion.
The petition is devoid of merit.
In certiorari petition, the scope of review is limited to the determination of whether a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; such grave abuse of discretion can exist when the ruling entity used the wrong considerations and thereby acted outside the contemplation of law.[21]
In justifying the dismissal of the Spouses San Gabriel’s notice of appeal, the RTC pointed out that they failed to sufficiently establish that the subject motion for reconsideration was filed on time. The discrepancy on the registry receipt number in Mr. Mioten’s affidavit of service and the certification issued by the Makati Central Post Office created doubt as to the veracity of the declaration of Mr. Mioten that he posted a copy of the subject motion for reconsideration on 21 July 2010. It seems to the RTC that the affidavit of Mr. Mioten was contradicted by the said certification.
Under the Rules of Court, the filing by registered mail may be proved by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who did the mailing, containing a full statement of the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court.[22] Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of filing through registered mail. Further, the third sentence of Section 3 of Rule 13 of the Rules provides that the date of filing may be shown either by the post office stamp on the envelope or by the registry receipt.
The record discloses that the Spouses San Gabriel received the 22 June 2010 decision of the RTC on 06 July 2010. Under the rules, the Spouses San Gabriel had 15 days from receipt of the decision of the RTC, or until 21 July 2010, to file a motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. The Spouses San Gabriel’s counsel allegedly filed by registered mail the subject motion for reconsideration on 21 July 2010 but they were not able to provide substantial proof of the actual date of mailing. They merely presented a photocopy of the supposed envelope[23] addressed to the RTC Branch 264 of Pasig City with the date 21 July 2010 stamped on it. A perusal of the said evidence, however, fails to convince us. There is no way to ascertain that the content of the said envelope was the subject motion for reconsideration. Although there is a “certified true copy” stamped on it, the same does not appear being done by the person authorized to make such certification. The said stamp and photocopies of the registry receipts do not prove themselves, they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of the date of mailing.
Therefore, the Spouses San Gabriel’s attempt to overthrow the findings of the RTC fell short of the required substantial proof to show that the RTC gravely erred in dismissing their appeal because of procedural lapses. Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[24]
Similar to the RTC’s observation, the court finds it unjustifiable for Mr. Mioten to go back to Makati City knowing that he lacked material time to timely file the subject motion for reconsideration. Upon knowing that the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 264 was situated in San Juan City, Mr. Mioten could have deposited a copy of the subject motion at the Pasig City Post Office and avoided the risk of filing the said motion beyond the prescribed period.
Apart from the foregoing, it does not escape us that the RTC already certified that its 22 June 2010 decision has become final and executory.[25] On 20 December 2011, a writ of execution[26] was issued by the RTC for the enforcement of its final decision. The said decision therefore can no longer be the subject of an appeal. Thus, the Spouses San Gabriel are bound by the decision and can no longer impugn the same. Well-settled is the rule that a decision that has attained finality can no longer be modified even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law.[27] At any rate, even if the RTC erred in dismissing the appeal of the Spouses San Gabriel, the decision appealed from has already become final and executory and will not be disturbed. Litigation should end and terminate sometime and somewhere. It is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.[28]
On the whole, the RTC may not be faulted for dismissing the notice of appeal filed by the Spouses San Gabriel on the ground that their motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper. We find no grave abuse on the part of the RTC in its exercise of discretion because we see substantial proof that supports its conclusion. It did not conclude out of thin air. The notice of appeal, being filed beyond the 15-day period from the receipt of the 22 June 2010 decision, was properly dismissed for having been taken out of time.[29] Therefore, the petition failed to establish that the RTC exercised its power arbitrarily or despotically, by reason perhaps of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando (Chairperson) and Barrios,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Actg. Third Member vice J. Gaerlan per Office Order No. 270-14-RSF dated 06 June 2014.
[1] The first name of respondent Mr. De Guzman appears to be “Arturo”and not “Antonio” as can be gleaned on the documentary submissions of the parties and the RTC’s subject orders.
[2] Dated 16 December 2011 in Civil Case No. 70828, Rollo, p. 32.
[3] Rollo, p. 37.
[4] Rollo, p. 38.
[5] Rollo, p. 48.
[6] Annex “7”, Rollo, p. 78.
[7] Annex “C”, Rollo, p. 41.
[8] Annex “2”, Rollo, p. 70.
[9] Annex “E”, Rollo, p. 87.
[10] Order dated 25 September 2006, Rollo, p. 401.
[11] Annex “G”, Rollo, p. 129.
[12] Rollo, p. 331.
[13] Id.
[14] Rollo, p. 133.
[15] Rollo, p. 136.
[16] Rollo, p. 193.
[17] Rollo, p. 236.
[18] Annex “8”, Rollo, p. 342.
[19] Annex “9”, Rollo, p. 343.
[20] Rollo, p. 199.
[21] Gonzales vs. Solid Cement Corp. and Querubin, GR No. 198423, 23 October 2012, 684 SCRA 344.
[22] Section 12, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[23] Rollo, p. 245.
[24] NGEI Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. vs. Filipinas Palmoil Plantation, Inc., GR No. 184950, 11 October 2012, 684 SCRA 152.
[25] Certificate of Finality dated 19 December 2011, Rollo, p. 351.
[26] Rollo, p. 352.
[27] Griffith vs. Estur, GR No. 161777, 07 May 2008, 554 SCRA 102.
[28] Antonino vs. The Register of Deeds of Makati City and Tan Tian Su, GR No. 185663, 20 June 2012, 674 SCRA 227.
[29] Section 13, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.