Redena v Court of Appeals - Atienza [d2017]
2
REDENA v. COURT OF APPEALS Petitioners: Tancredo Redena Respondents: The Court of Appeals and Leocadio Redena Ponente: GARCIA, J. Doctrine: Petition for Relief under Rule 38 may be filed only before the MTC or RTC which decided the case. It may only be filed in the same case and same court in which the petition arose. FACTS: 1. An action for partition was filed by petitioner Tancredo against his older half-brother Leocadio, herein respondent, before the RTC of San Pablo, Laguna. 2. The complaint alleges that the parties common father left several pieces of realty (Three properties were mentioned). RTC confined its decision to only one piece of property that was co- owned by the father and the parties in this case. The other properties were not included in the partition because the RTC stated that it belonged to Leocadio. 3. December 11, 1997, petitioner filed with the trial court a notice of appeal. 4. On September 28, 1998, the CA directed the petitioner to file his appellants brief. The period to file was extended by the CA. 5. March 9, 1999, the CA considered the appeal abandoned and dismissed it because the appellants brief was not filed within the period given. 6. November 8, 1999 (8 months after), petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. CA denied the motion. 7. December 28, 1999, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief before the CA. CA denied the petition. 8. CA states that Petition for Relief may not be filed before the CA. Petition for Relief, based on the past and present Rules of Court, may only be filed in the MTC or RTC. ISSUE: 1. WON Petition for Relief may be filed. RULING + RATIO: 1. No. Negligence of Petitioner is not an excusable negligence which prevented him from perfecting his appeal.. To recapitulate, petitioner is not entitled to relief under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. He was not prevented from filing his notice of appeal by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, as in fact he filed one. The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure for that matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost, either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.21 The Rules allow a petition for relief only when there is no other available remedy, and not when litigants, like the petitioner, lose a remedy by negligence. Under Section 2 of Rule 38, supra, of the Rules of Court, a party prevented from taking an appeal from a judgment or final order of a court by reason of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, may file in the same court and in the same case a petition for relief praying that his appeal be given due course. This presupposes, of course, that no appeal was taken precisely because of any of the
description
Digest
Transcript of Redena v Court of Appeals - Atienza [d2017]
[Type text][Type text][Type text]
REDENA v. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioners: Tancredo RedenaRespondents: The Court of Appeals and Leocadio RedenaPonente: GARCIA, J.
Doctrine: Petition for Relief under Rule 38 may be filed only before the MTC or RTC which decided the case. It may only be filed in the same case and same court in which the petition arose.
FACTS: 1. An action for partition was filed by petitioner Tancredo against his older half-brother Leocadio, herein respondent, before the RTC of San Pablo, Laguna.2. The complaint alleges that the parties common father left several pieces of realty (Three properties were mentioned). RTC confined its decision to only one piece of property that was co-owned by the father and the parties in this case. The other properties were not included in the partition because the RTC stated that it belonged to Leocadio. 3. December 11, 1997, petitioner filed with the trial court a notice of appeal.4. On September 28, 1998, the CA directed the petitioner to file his appellants brief. The period to file was extended by the CA.5. March 9, 1999, the CA considered the appeal abandoned and dismissed it because the appellants brief was not filed within the period given.6. November 8, 1999 (8 months after), petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. CA denied the motion.7. December 28, 1999, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief before the CA. CA denied the petition.8. CA states that Petition for Relief may not be filed before the CA. Petition for Relief, based on the past and present Rules of Court, may only be filed in the MTC or RTC.ISSUE:1. WON Petition for Relief may be filed.
RULING + RATIO:1. No. Negligence of Petitioner is not an excusable negligence which prevented him from perfecting his appeal.. To recapitulate, petitioner is not entitled to relief under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. He was not prevented from filing his notice of appeal by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, as in fact he filed one. The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure for that matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost, either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.21 The Rules allow a petition for relief only when there is no other available remedy, and not when litigants, like the petitioner, lose a remedy by negligence. Under Section 2 of Rule 38, supra, of the Rules of Court, a party prevented from taking an appeal from a judgment or final order of a court by reason of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, may file in the same court and in the same case a petition for relief praying that his appeal be given due course. This presupposes, of course, that no appeal was taken precisely because of any of the aforestated reasons which prevented him from appealing his case. A petition for relief under Rule 38 cannot be availed of in the CA, the latter being a court of appellate jurisdiction. It needs to be filed in the same court and in the same case. Applicable for both RTC and MTC. In this case, Petitioner had all the opportunity to appeal his case and also to file his appellants brief. However, he failed to file the appellants brief. His motion for reconsideration was also filed late. The negligence of his counsel was not gross negligence.
DISPOSITION:WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the assailed resolutions of the CA are AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
