HEIRS OF THE LATE FLOR TUNGPALAN, NAMELY, LEONILA VDA. DE TUNGPALAN, EFREN G. TUNGPALAN, VIOLA G. TUNGPALAN, OFELIA TUNGPALAN DUENAS, LAURO G. TUNGPALAN, ROLANDO G. TUNGPALAN, A…

Heirs of the Late Flor Tungpalan versus Estaquio

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the heirs of the late Flor Tungpalan against the spouses Navarro Estaquio and Arabella Estaquio and the Register of Deeds of Davao City. The heirs had sued to reform and annul a title, to recover property, and to obtain damages, but their complaint was dismissed when neither they nor their counsel appeared at the pre-trial. The case matters because it fixes the consequences of a dismissal for failure to prosecute, the finality of orders left unappealed, and the rule that a client cannot escape the neglect of his own counsel when he himself has been negligent.

Procedural History

The heirs filed their complaint for reformation, reconveyance, nullification of title, damages and attorney's fees, with a prayer for injunction, before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 14. After several postponements of the pre-trial, the trial court declared the heirs non-suited and dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim by an order dated March 8, 1993. One year and seven months later, the heirs filed a motion for reconsideration, later amended and supported by an affidavit of merit. The trial court granted it in the higher interest of justice and revoked its earlier order. On the respondents' motion, however, the trial court reconsidered and reinstated its March 8, 1993 order, holding that it had lost jurisdiction because the order had long become final.

The heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which initially dismissed the appeal for failure to file a brief but later reinstated it on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order reinstating the dismissal. The heirs then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

The heirs of Flor Tungpalan sued the Estaquio spouses and the Register of Deeds of Davao City over a title they claimed had been issued in breach of an agreement. The trial court set the pre-trial conference on several dates, but it was postponed five times at the instance of one side or the other, and both sides were twice warned that the resetting would be for the last time.

On March 2, 1993, the pre-trial was called. The defendants and their counsel appeared and were ready, but neither the heirs nor their counsel, Attorney Ruben Abarquez, appeared despite notice. On motion of the defendants, the trial court issued its order of March 8, 1993 declaring the plaintiffs non-suited and dismissing the complaint, and dismissing the counterclaim as compulsory in nature.

Both the heirs and their counsel received copies of that order on May 14, 1993. No appeal was taken. One year and seven months later, on October 6, 1994, the heirs filed a motion for reconsideration, later amended and accompanied by an affidavit of merit. The trial court granted it, but on the respondents' motion it reconsidered and reinstated the dismissal, ruling that the March 8, 1993 order had become final on May 29, 1993 and that it had no more jurisdiction to revoke it.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order of December 22, 1994 reinstating its order of March 8, 1993 declaring the petitioners non-suited and dismissing their complaint.
• Whether or not the gross and inexcusable negligence of the petitioners' former counsel binds the petitioners.
• Whether or not the lower court should be ordered to hear the case on the merits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Court, on failure to prosecute, provides:

Failure to prosecute – If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any other order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court.

This provision governs the effect of the dismissal of the heirs' complaint, because the order of dismissal did not state that it was without prejudice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. The heirs filed their motion for reconsideration one year and seven months after the order of March 8, 1993 had become final. The law grants an aggrieved party fifteen days from receipt of the decision or order to appeal or move to reconsider. After that period, the order becomes final and executory and is beyond the power of the court that rendered it to amend or revoke. The trial court therefore correctly redeemed itself when it revoked its November 15, 1994 order and reinstated the dismissal, since it had no more jurisdiction to issue the earlier order.

On the second issue, the Court refused to lay the blame on counsel. Separate notices had been sent to the heirs and to their counsel each time the pre-trial was set, and both separately received the March 8, 1993 order on May 14, 1993. The least the heirs could have done was to coordinate with their counsel, but they did nothing for one year and seven months. A party cannot blame his counsel when he himself was guilty of neglect, and the laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.

On the third issue, the Court declined to order a hearing on the merits. It stressed that the complaint had been dismissed twice: the first case, filed in 1980, was dismissed after nine years for failure to prosecute, and the second, filed in 1992, alleged the same cause of action and prayed for the same reliefs. A dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as a judgment on the merits, and since the order of March 8, 1993 did not state that the dismissal was without prejudice, it barred the filing of another action on the same cause of action.

Doctrine

A party has fifteen days from receipt of a decision or order to appeal or move for reconsideration. After that period, the order becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case, and not even an appellate court may review it. A client cannot escape the consequences of his counsel's negligence when he himself was also negligent, for the laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Under Section 3, Rule 17, a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court provides otherwise, and such a dismissal bars a subsequent action on the same cause of action.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and costs were taxed against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that a dismissal for failure to prosecute is an adjudication on the merits unless the court says otherwise, and that finality strips even the rendering court of jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test the fifteen-day reglementary period, the finality of orders, and the binding effect of counsel's negligence on the client.