SPOUSES PEDRO M. REGALADO AND ZANITA F. REGALADO, PETITIONERS, VS. ABRAHAM M. REGALADO, CIRILO M. REGALADO, ISIDRO M. REGALADO, CIRIACO M. REGALADO, JORGE M. REGALADO, JULIANA R…

Regalado versus Regalado

The Case

This is the case of Regalado versus Regalado, a petition brought by the spouses Pedro Regalado and Zanita Regalado against Pedro's siblings, who sued for the partition of a family fishpond, for an accounting, for damages, and for the appointment of a receiver. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to nullify the trial court's decision and its orders, but the real battleground turns out to be procedure: the petitioners lost their appeal through their own counsel's neglect, and then chose the wrong remedy to challenge that loss. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the hierarchy of remedies, on the narrowness of a petition for relief from judgment, and on the binding effect of counsel's negligence upon the client.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for partition of real estate, accounting, damages, and appointment of a receiver before the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 8. During the proceedings the trial court granted the petition for receivership, but later held that resolution in abeyance and set the main case for trial. After trial, the court rendered judgment for the respondents, declaring the fishpond the common property of all the parties, ordering its partition into nine equal parts, requiring the petitioners to render an accounting of the produce from 1980 until actual partition, awarding attorney's fees and litigation expenses, and ordering the appointment of a receiver upon the filing of a bond.

The petitioners filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court denied due course because they neither filed a record on appeal nor paid the appellate docket and other lawful fees. The decision thus became final, and judgment was entered. The petitioners then filed a petition for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied, holding that the reasons given were not excusable negligence. From these issuances the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

As early as 1929, the parents of the parties, the deceased spouses Apolonio Regalado and Sofia Regalado, had been in possession of a forty-hectare fishpond which they developed and even leased to third persons. At one time the father leased part of the property to a certain Benjamin Roxas for nine years, from January 1972 to January 1981. In 1980, before that lease ended, Pedro Regalado, together with his brother Ciriaco, forcibly took possession of the fishpond from the lessee.

After the father's death, the siblings demanded partition from the spouses Pedro and Zanita, who held the entire fishpond. The spouses refused and asked for more time, and the same demand, refusal, and request for extension repeated itself in 1989 and again in 1992. The spouses reasoned that they had not yet recovered their expenses in developing the fishpond and in recovering its possession from third persons.

In August 1992 the respondents filed their complaint. The spouses answered that the fishpond was not part of the hereditary estate because it was public land covered by a Fishpond Lease Agreement, and that in any event the respondents were not entitled to equal shares since it was Pedro alone who had recovered possession. The respondents then sought the appointment of a receiver, alleging that the property was in danger of being wasted, of being foreclosed by the spouses' creditors, or of being forfeited by the Government for non-payment of taxes and fishpond rentals. The trial court eventually ruled for the respondents, and when the spouses failed to perfect their appeal, the decision became final.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners availed of the correct remedy in challenging, through an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, the trial court's denial of their petition for relief from judgment and its order dismissing their appeal.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly denied the petition for relief from judgment, there being no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that prevented the petitioners from perfecting their appeal.
• Whether or not the negligence of the petitioners' counsel binds the petitioners.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: (b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment; (d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.

This provision fixes the remedy: an order denying relief from judgment, and an order dismissing an appeal, are not appealable, and must be challenged by a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not by an appeal under Rule 45.

Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal. When a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course.

This provision defines the only grounds on which relief from the loss of an appeal may be granted, and the petitioners failed to bring themselves within any of them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. Under Section 1 of Rule 41, the denial of a petition for relief from judgment and an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal may be challenged only through the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. Coming to the Court by appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 was therefore clearly erroneous.

On the second issue, the Court held that even a petition under Rule 65 would fail, because the petitioners alleged no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. On the merits of the relief sought, the Court found no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The excuse that counsel's clerk forgot to bring the order to his attention was, in the Court's words, the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants. The excuse of volume and pressure of work was likewise insufficient, for the Court has consistently ruled that it does not constitute mistake or excusable negligence. The Court stressed that the appellate docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the period for taking an appeal, and that failure to pay them on time is a ground for dismissal. The petitioners filed only a notice of appeal, filed their record on appeal belatedly by attaching it to their petition for relief, and paid no appellate fees with the notice. Negligence, to be excusable, must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners are bound by the acts of their counsel in the conduct of the case and must bear the consequences. Blunders and mistakes of counsel in the conduct of proceedings do not qualify as a ground for reopening the case, for otherwise there would never be an end to litigation.

Doctrine

First, the denial of a petition for relief from judgment, and an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal, are not appealable; the aggrieved party must file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Second, a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy, allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy, and only where fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence prevented the taking of an appeal. Third, the negligence of counsel's clerk in failing to bring an order to counsel's attention, and the volume and pressure of counsel's work, are not excusable negligence. Fourth, the client is bound by the acts and omissions of counsel, and counsel's blunders do not justify reopening the case.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioners, and required their new counsel to explain why he should not be proceeded against administratively for filing pleadings without first entering his appearance.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an order denying a petition for relief from judgment and an order dismissing an appeal are challenged by certiorari under Rule 65, never by appeal under Rule 45. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of remedies and the rule that counsel's negligence, including a clerk's oversight and pressure of work, binds the client and is not excusable negligence.