Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
*
G.R.No.136726.September24,2003.
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
55
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 55
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
former counsel, the OSG, was negligent. This negligence, however, binds
petitioner.Thetrialandappellatecourtscorrectlyruledthatthenegligenceof
the OSG could not relieve petitioner of the effects of such negligence and
preventthedecisionofthetrialcourtfrombecomingfinalandexecutory.
SameSameSameSameAftertheOSGsfailuretofiletheanswerto
the petition for mandamus and damages and to have the order declaring
petitionerindefaultlifted,petitionershouldhavealreadyreplacedtheOSG
withanotherlawyer.Inthepresentcase,therewasnoproofthatpetitioner
suffered serious injustice to exempt him from the general rule that the
negligenceofthecounselbindstheclient.Petitionerdidnotevenattemptto
refute the respondents allegations in the petition for mandamus and
damages.Moreover,petitionerisnotentirelyblamelessforthedismissalof
his appeal. After the OSGs failure to file the answer to the petition for
mandamusanddamagesandtohavetheorderdeclaringpetitionerindefault
lifted,petitionershouldhavealreadyreplacedtheOSGwithanotherlawyer.
However, petitioner still retained the services of the OSG, despite its
apparent lack of interest in petitioners case, until the trial courts decision
becamefinal.
SameSameLitigantsrepresentedbycounselshouldnotexpectthatall
they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case.
PetitionercannotnowcomplainoftheOSGserrors.Petitionershouldhave
taken the initiative of making periodic inquiries from the OSG and the
appellatecourtaboutthestatusofhiscase.Litigantsrepresentedbycounsel
should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the
outcome of their case. To agree with petitioners stance would enable every
party to render inutile any adverse order or decision through the simple
expedient of alleging negligence on the part of his counsel. The Court will
not countenance such illfounded argument which contradicts longsettled
doctrinesoftrialandprocedure.
SameJudgmentsOneoftheexceptionstotherulethatajudgmentthat
hasacquiredfinalitybecomesimmutableandunalterableandmaynolonger
bemodifiedinanyrespectexceptonlytocorrectclericalerrorsormistakes
is when circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering
itsexecutionunjustandinequitable.Settledistherulethatajudgmentthat
hasacquiredfinalitybecomesimmutableandunalterableandmaynolonger
bemodifiedinanyrespectexceptonlytocorrectclericalerrorsormistakes.
True, this rule admits of certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is
whenevercircumstancestranspireafterthefinalityofthedecisionrendering
its execution unjust and inequitable. This, however, is not the case here. In
thepresentcase,theOmbudsmanissuedhisResolutionpriortothefinality
of the trial courts decision. The Ombudsman issued his Resolution on 22
January1997whilethetrialcourts
56
56 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionof
theCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
JonathanM.Polinesforpetitioner.
Cayanga,Zuniga&Angelforprivaterespondents.
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
1 2
Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari seekstoreversetheDecision
3
of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 48233 dated 304
September 1998 denying due course to the petition for certiorari
filed by Panfilo V. Villaruel, Jr. and the Resolution dated 3
December1998denyingthemotionforreconsideration.
TheFacts
_______________
1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
2PennedbyAssociateJusticeRomeoJ.Callejo,Sr.(nowAssociateJusticeofthis
Court), with Associate Justices Fermin A. Martin, Jr., and Mariano M. Umali
concurring.
3 Entitled Panfilo V. Villaruel, Jr. v. Hon. Cesar Z. Ylagan, as Judge of the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch231,PasayCity,DeputySheriffLawrenceB.Uy,RTC
Branch 231, Pasay City, Reynaldo Fernando, Modesto Abarca, Jr. and Marilou M.
Cleofas.
4UnderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
57
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 57
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
localaviationindustryaswellasfortheSoutheastAsianandPacific
region.
Petitionerissuedamemorandumdated27April1995addressed
to the respondents, detailing them to the Office of DOTC
UndersecretaryPrimitivoC.Caleffective2May1995.
On 29 April 1995, respondents wrote to DOTC Secretary Jesus
B. Garcia and Undersecretary Josefina T. Lichauco through
petitionerrequestingforreconsiderationofthedetailorder.
On7May1995,incompliancewiththedetailorder,respondents
reportedtotheOfficeofUndersecretaryCalatDOTC.
Without acting on respondents request for reconsideration,
petitioner issued a memorandum on 19 July 1995 addressed to
Abarca placing him under preventive suspension for 90 days
withoutpaypendinginvestigationforallegedgravemisconduct.
On 10 August 1995, respondents requested Secretary Garcia to
liftthedetailorderandtoordertheirreturntotheirmotherunitsince
morethan90dayshadalreadylapsed.Respondentsalsosoughtthe
intervention of the Ombudsman in their case. As a result, the
Ombudsman inquired from Secretary Garcia the action taken on
respondentsrequestforreconsiderationofthedetailorder.
On 22 November 1995, Secretary Garcia replied to the
Ombudsman that he had issued a memorandum dated 9 November
1995 directing petitioner to recall respondents to their mother unit.
Secretary Garcia declared that the law does not sanction the
continuousdetailofrespondents.
Despite repeated demands by respondents, petitioner failed and
refusedtoreinstaterespondentstotheirmotherunit.
On24January1996,respondentsfiledaPetitionforMandamus
and Damages with Prayer for a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City
docketed as Civil Case No. 960139. Respondents prayed for the
following:
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,petitionershereinrespectfullyprayof
thisHonorableCourtthat:
58
58 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
Petitioners herein pray for5 such other and further relief as may be just
andequitableinthepremises.
On23February1996,thetrialcourtgrantedrespondentsprayerfor
apreliminarymandatoryinjunction.
Meanwhile,JudgeAuroraNavaretteReciaofthetrialcourtwas
appointed Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights.
Consequently,thecasewasreraffledandassignedtoBranch231of
6
theRegionalTrialCourt,PasayCity.
On 12 April 1996, the trial court issued an order modifying the
23 February 1996 order of Judge Recia. The trial court issued a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering petitioner to
comply with the 9 November 1995 order of Secretary Garcia
directing petitioner to recall respondents to their mother unit until
furtherordersbythetrialcourt.
For petitioners continued failure to comply with the writ of
preliminaryinjunction,respondentsmovedtocitepetitionerincon
_______________
5CARollo,pp.2627.
6PresidedbyJudgeCesarZ.Ylagan.
59
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 59
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
(1) Onehundredthousandpesos(P100,000.00)eachasmoraldamages
(2) wenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) each as exemplary
damages
(3) Twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) each as temperate
damages,and
(4) Fifty thousand
8
pesos (P50,000.00) as attorneys fees.SO
ORDERED.
7EntitledPanfiloVillaruel,Jr.v.Hon.AuroraNavaretteRecia,etal.Rollo,p.
36.
8CARollo,p.34.
9Rollo,p.38.
60
60 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
_______________
10FranciscoF.Brillantes,Jr.&Associates.
11EntitledPanfiloVillaruel,Jr.v.ReynaldoD.Fernando,etal.
61
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 61
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
PetitionerraisedbeforetheCourtofAppealsthefollowingissues:
Onthefirstissue,theCourtofAppealsruledthatthenegligenceof
the OSG could not relieve petitioner of the effects of such
negligenceandpreventthedecisionofthetrialcourtfrombecoming
finalandexecutory.Inshort,theOSGsnegligencebindspetitioner.
_______________
12Rollo,pp.118119.
13Ibid.,p.7.
62
62 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
_______________
14G.R.No.70510,24August1990,189SCRA46.
15 Otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
OfficialsandEmployees.Sec.7ofRA6713providesasfollows:
Sec.7.ProhibitedActsandTransactions.Inadditiontoactsandomissionsofpublicofficials
and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall
constituteprohibitedactsandtransactionsofanypublicofficialandemployeeandarehereby
declaredtobeunlawful:
(d)Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. Public officials and employees shall not solicit or
accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetaryvaluefromanypersoninthecourseoftheirofficialdutiesorinconnectionwithany
operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of
theiroffice.
63
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 63
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
TheIssues
16
PetitionerpresentsthefollowingissuesforresolutionofthisCourt:
ThemainissuetoresolveiswhethertheCourtofAppealserredin
dismissingthepetitionforcertiorariassailingthetrialcourtsorders
dated 23 February 1998 and 28 April 1998. Resolving this issue
necessarilydeterminesthevalidityofthequestionedorders.Thisin
turn resolves the questions of whether the trial court denied
petitionerofhisrighttodueprocessandwhethertheOmbudsmans
resolutionrenderedtheexecutionofthetrialcourtsdecisionunjust
andinequitable.
We can no longer resolve the issue regarding the validity and
reasonablenessoftheawardofdamagesforthreereasons.First,the
decision of the trial court dated 11 July 1996 is already final and
executory.Second,thepetitionforcertiorarifiledbypetitionerwas
simplyadirectconsequenceofthetrialcourtsissuanceofthewrit
of execution and notice of sheriffs sale. In other words, petitioner
merely questioned the execution of the trial courts decision in his
petitionforcertiorari.Third,petitionerdidnotraisetheissueofthe
validity and reasonableness
17
of the award of damages before the
CourtofAppeals.
_______________
64
64 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
TheCourtsRuling
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
We begin by pointing out that petitioner failed to allege the
essential requisites under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
forapetitionforcertioraritoprosper.Specifically,petitionernever
alleged that the trial court acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction in issuing the questioned orders. Neither did petitioner
allegethatthetrialcourtgravelyabuseditsdiscretionamountingto
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw.Inother
words,thereisnoissuethatthetrialcourtcommittedgraveabuseof
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in handing
downthequestionedorders.Onthisscorealone,thedismissalofthe
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals is in order.
However,indisposingoftheinstantcase,weshallstillresolvethe
principalissuesraisedbypetitioner.
NoDenialofPetitionersRighttoDueProcess
Petitioneressentiallycontendsthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtin
Civil Case No. 960139 is void for lack of due process. Petitioner
allegesthatthetrialcourtnevergavehimthechancetobeheardand
tosubmithisevidence.Petitioner,formerlyrepresentedbytheOSG,
failed to file an answer to respondents petition for mandamus and
damages.Consequently,thetrialcourtdeclaredpetitionerindefault.
WhiletheOSGfiledanoticeofappealofthejudgmentbydefault,it
failed to file with the Court of Appeals the required memorandum
resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. In petitioners words, the
18
OSG virtually abandoned his case. Petitioner argues that the
18
OSG virtually abandoned his case. Petitioner argues that the
inexcusablenegligenceoftheOSGdidnotbindhimandprevented
thedecisionofthetrialcourtfrombecomingfinalandexecutory.
Wedonotagree. 19
Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard
and this opportunity was not denied petitioner. Throughout the
proceedingsinthetrialcourtaswellasintheCourtofAppeals,
_______________
18Rollo,pp.271,280.
19 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Inc. v. Bitanga, G.R. No. 137934, 10
August2001,362SCRA635.
65
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 65
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
petitionerhadtheopportunitytopresenthissidebuthefailedtodo
so. Clearly, petitioners former counsel, the OSG, was negligent.
This negligence, however, binds petitioner. The trial and appellate
courts correctly ruled that the negligence of the20 OSG could not
relievepetitioneroftheeffectsofsuchnegligence andpreventthe
decisionofthetrialcourtfrombecomingfinalandexecutory.
21
In Villa Rhecar Bus v. De la Cruz, which petitioner himself
cited,theCourtruled:
RespondentsrelianceonLegardaisinapropos.Notably,thedecisioninsaid
casewasnotyetfinalin1991.Theprivaterespondentthereinthen
_______________
20ProducersBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,G.R.No.126620,17April
2002,381SCRA185.
21No.L78936,7January1988,157SCRA13.
22364Phil.281304SCRA632(1999).
66
66 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
_______________
23GoldLineTransit,Inc.v.Ramos,G.R.No.144813,15August2001,363 SCRA
262.
24Ibid.
25ProducersBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,supra,seenote20.
26Ibid.,citingSalongav.CourtofAppeals,336Phil.514269SCRA534(1997).
67
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 67
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
TheOmbudsmansResolutionDoesNotRendertheExecutionof
theTrialCourtsDecisionUnjustandInequitable
_______________
27 Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 317 Phil. 700 247 SCRA 599
(1995) Yu v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 107 245 SCRA 134
(1995).
28Cabrias,etal.v.Hon.Midpantao,etc.,etal.,220Phil.41135SCRA354(1985).
68
68 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villaruel,Jr.vs.Fernando
in the civil action before the trial court was whether respondents
wereentitledtotheissuanceofthewritofmandamusanddamages.
ThefindingsoftheOmbudsmandidnotrendertheexecutionof
thetrialcourtsdecisionunjustandinequitable.Theresolutionofthe
OmbudsmanfindingAbarcaguiltyofviolatingSection7(d)ofRA
6713 did not state that petitioner had a valid reason to detail
respondents to the Office of Undersecretary Cal. In fact, the Om
budsman dismissed the charges against Reynaldo Fernando and
MaryLouCleofas.Thus,thetrialcourtcorrectlyawardeddamages
to respondents. Contrary to petitioners contention, awarding
damages to respondents does not amount to rewarding respondents
for their alleged wrongdoing. The award merely compensates
respondentsforpetitionersownunlawfulacts.Clearlyillegalwere
petitioners acts of unjustifiably detailing respondents to the office
of DOTC Undersecretary Cal and refusing to comply with the 9
November1995directiveofSecretaryGarciatorecallimmediately
respondentstotheirmotherunit.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition. The Decision of
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.48233dated30September
1998 and the Resolution dated 3 December 1998 are AFFIRMED.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmed.
Notes.Sloppy briefwritingby a lawyer of the Office of the
SolicitorGeneralatthatcannotandshouldnotbecountenanced.
(Peoplevs.Lucero,229SCRA1[1994])
TheSolicitorGeneralshouldbemorevigilantinhandlingcases
which his office represents. (Ramosvs.Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418
[1995])
TheundeniablydilatorydisinclinationoftheOSGtoseasonably
file required pleadings constitutes deplorable disservice to the tax
payingpublicandcanonlybecategorizedascensurableineffi
69
VOL.412,SEPTEMBER24,2003 69
ToyotaMotorPhils.CorporationWorkersAssociation(TMPCWA)
vs.CourtofAppeals
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.