GSIS vs. Bengson GR 137448, 31 January 2002 En Banc Davide Jr (CJ) Sesinando S. Santayana Jr.

Facts: These are two consolidated cases, both filed by the GSIS. The first is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the November 24, 1998 and January 29, 1999 Resolutions of the CA which denied GSIS petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time and for noncompliance with procedural requirements. The second is a special civil action for certiorari challenging the January 14, 2000 Decision of the CA which dismissed GSIS petitions on the ground of forum-shopping. The facts are as follows: Private respondent Bengson Commercial Buildings, Inc. obtained loans from GSIS on August 20, 1965 and November 23, 1971 in the amounts of P1.25 million and P3 million respectively, or in the aggregate sum of P4.25 million. As a security for the payment of these loans, Bengson executed a real estate and chattel mortgages in favor of GSIS. Bengson sold to GSIS 9 units of debenture bonds in the amount of P900,000. for Bengsons failure to settle its arrearages, the mortgaged properties were extra-judicially foreclosed and sold at public auction to the highest bidder, the GSIS itself. On June 23, 1977, Bengson filed with then CFI of San Fernando, La Union, an action for the annulment of the foreclosure sale. On April 6, 1995, the trial court issued an order awarding to Bengson the sum of P31 million as costs of suit. A copy of that order was received on that same date by GSIS counsel Atty. Rogelio Terrado. After the said order became final, or on April 24, 1995, the trial court granted Bengsons ex-parte motion for execution. It was only on May 4, 1995, upon the receipt of a copy of the order of execution, that GSIS became aware of the April 6, 1995 Order because Atty. Terrado had been absent without official leave since April 6. On May 15, 1995, GSIS, through its corporate counsel, Atty. Oscar Garcia, filed with the trial court an Urgent Omnibus Motion, stating that GSIS had not received yet the said Order because its former counsel had been AWOL since April, 1995. The trial court denied GSIS Urgent Omnibus Motion, which was treated as a petition for relief from judgment. GSIS instituted on June 11, 1998 with the CA a special civil action for certiorari, which said petition was dismissed by the CA. when its Motion for Reconsideration of November 24, 1998 was denied by the CA on January 29, 1999, GSIS filed a petition. Meanwhile, on December 16, 1998, the trial court ordered the issuance of an alias writ for the execution of the award of P31 million costs of suit. On January 14, 2000, the CA rendered a consolidated decision dismissing both petitions on the ground of forum-shopping and lifting the TRO. Hence, GSIS filed with this Court a special civil action for certiorari with very urgent motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and/or TRO. Issue [1]: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of forum-shopping; and,

Held [1]: The petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special action for certiorari One petition of the GSIS was for a special civil action for certiorari after its petition for relief from the 1995 Order of the trial court and its motion for reconsideration were both denied. On the other hand, the other petition was for a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the 1998 Order of the trial court directing the issuance of an alias writ of execution and the 1999 Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Quash and Alias Writ of Execution. The dismissal, therefore of petitioners petition for certiorari on the ground of forum shopping cannot be sustained. Issue [2]: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petitioners petition was not accompanied with a clearly legible duplicate copy or a certified true copy of the judgment, under Rule 46 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Held [2]: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA did not err in dismissing the same petition for certiorari fro non-compliance with some of the requirements mentioned in Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It is undisputed that the petition was not accompanied with a clearly legible duplicate copy or a certified true copy of the judgment subject thereof. What was submitted was not a certified true copy of the January 16, 1997 Decision of the trial court. Moreover, the Verification and Certificate on Non-Forum Shopping was executed by petitioners counsel, not by its duly authorized officer. Personal Observation: While the Supreme Court in this case strictly adheres to the procedural requirements as to the timely filing of appeal and dismissing the petition for certiorari for not complying with the requirements as to the due execution of the Verification and Certificate on Non-Forum Shopping and the submission/ attachment of the clearly legible copy or a certified true copy of the judgment subject matter thereof pursuant to Rule 46 of the 1997 RRC, the Court relaxed the Rules when it (SC) made an exception to the general rule that the negligence or mistake of counsel binds the client, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Rather, they posited that one could not insist that a notice to such irresponsible lawyer is also notice to his clients. The records show that the former and substitute lawyer committed several mistakes in the progress of the case. The new counsel, Atty. Faustino Madriaga, did not even attempt to show gross negligence of GSIS former counsel, Atty. Terrado, that could justify relief from the final and executory order of the already abandoned April 6, 1995 Order. He also failed to attach a certified true copy of the Decision denying the petition for relief and the April, 1995 Order of Execution. Moreover, he was the one who signed the Verification and Certificate on Non-Forum Shopping, not an authorized officer of the GSIS. Despite all these setbacks, the SC used its power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule arguing that the purposes of justice require it. The SC further stated that what should guide judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities.

Despite the setbacks discussed above, the SC ordered to remand the case to the trial court, and pursuant to Section 6, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the case shall stand as if the April 6, 1995 Order has never been issued and proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration has been granted by it.