Remedial Law: Strict application of Rules of Procedure; client bound by negligence

of cousel
Case: Torrecampo vs. NLRC
Gr. No. 199617, September 2, 2015
Facts:

On 12 July 2011, the CA issued a resolution dismissing the Petition for Certiorari
filed by petitioners for failing to perfect their petition for certiorari within the 60-day
reglementary period provided under the Revised Rules of Court. In dismissing their
petition, the appellate court found that not only did petitioners fail to perfect their
petition for certiorari on time, they likewise attempted to mislead the appellate court
as to the date of the receipt of the assailed decision

The CA also denied the Motion for Reconsideration

Hence, this Petition for Certiorari filed to the SC.

They argued that strict application of the rules in light of the extant merits of this case
is not justified under the circumstances. They said that the delay in assailing the NLRC
Resolution was mainly attributable to their former counsel who, for unknown reasons and
without promptly informing them, deserted their case.
In justifying their original claim that they received the NLRC resolution on
21 March 2011, the petitioners reasoned that they merely relied on the declarations made
by the housemaid of their counsel. Petitioners plead for the liberal interpretation of the
rule on perfection of appeal so that the case can be threshed out on the merits, and not on
technicality
Issues and Rulings:

Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion when it strictly applied the
rules

Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari should be instituted

within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be
assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would
violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.
Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded
with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.
As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking
certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays
and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules
are regarded as mandatory.

Whether the petitioners are bound by the negligence of their counsel.

The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsels acts, including even
mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel,
once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to
the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or
omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law,
as the act or omission of the client himself. A recognized exception to the rule is when the
reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For
the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the
client's own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in
respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing "in
this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.

Remedial Law: Dismissal for failure to prosecute; dismissal on the merits; dismissal
of complaint does not carry with it dismissal of counterclaim; effects of prohibited
Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Case: Roasters Philippines, Inc. vs. George Gaviola et al.
Gr. No. 191874, September 02, 2015
Facts:

On April 09, 2003, Gaviola et al (respondents) filed a Complaint for Damages

against Roasters Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) before the RTC of Las Pinas City.
The family was hospitalized due to acute gastroenteritis and possible food
poisoning when they dined at Kenny Rogers Roasters restaurant Duty-Free
branch in Paranaque.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of

action. The trial court denied the motion, as well as the subsequent motion for
reconsideration filed thereafter.

Thus, they filed an Answer alleging again that the complaint states no cause of
action; that it is not the direct and real owner of the said branch; and that there
was no valid demand made by respondents. They also filed a Counterclaim for
damages.

Petitioner also filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA questioning the refusal
of the RTC to dismiss the complaint. On March 14, 2005, CA dismissed the
petition. March 7, 2006, CA issued a Resolution declaring such dismissal final
and executory as of July 20, 2005.

On April 26, 2007, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to
prosecute under Rule 17, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court; alleging that respondents
had not filed any pleading to revive or re-activate their case since the March 14,
2005 decision of CA has become final and executory.

In response, respondents filed a Manifestation with Motion to Set the Case for
Pretrial.

RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and set the pretrial.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the order denying the Motion
to Dismiss but was also denied. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
CA assailing such denial with a corresponding Motion to Suspend Proceedings
before the RTC pending the Petition for Certiorari.

The CA denied the petition prompting the RTC to also deny the motion to suspend
proceedings. Hence, the case was set for trial.

On May 19, 2008, during the presentation of their evidence-in-chief, respondents

failed to attend the hearing. Consequently, RTC issued an order dismissing the
Complaint for failure to prosecute.

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration explaining that at the day of the
hearing, one of the respondents had a prior engagement in the USA, which
nonetheless did not push through because the latter was hospitalized due to
profuse bleeding. On Aug 26, 2008, RTC denied the MR.

Respondents changed their counsel and the new counsel filed a Motion for Leave
to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration. On Oct 23, 2008, RTC denied the
second MR for lack of merit.

Respondents then filed a Notice of Appeal from the Orders of dismissal of their
complaint and the denials of the MR and the second MR. On Nov. 18, 2008, RTC
denied the appeal on the ground that the orders appealed from are mere
interlocutory orders.

Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse
of discretion.

On Dec 11, 2009, CA annulled the RTCs decision and directed the reinstatement
of the case. CA held that the RTC judge gravely abused discretion for ordering the
dismissal despite the existence of a justifiable cause for non-appearance of
respondents. Moreover, CA ruled that the order of dismissal is not an
interlocutory order but a final order which is a proper subject of appeal; hence, the
notice of appeal is correctly filed.

Issues and Ruling:

Whether the case should be dismissed for failure of respondents to prosecute.

An action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute in any of the
following instances:
(1) if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial; or
(2) if he fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time; or
(3) if he fails to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the court

The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the
plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable
promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute.
In this case, the explanations offered as regards the absence of respondents and their
witnesses do not merit reconsideration. The actions exhibited by respondents demonstrate
their lack of interest in prosecuting the case. Almost two years had lapsed from finality of
the Court of Appeals Decision dated 14 March 2005 but respondents have not filed any

pleading to revive the case. Respondents acted only upon the behest of petitioner who
filed a Motion to Dismiss. On the scheduled pre-trial on 6 August 2007, respondents and
counsel again failed to appear. Respondents failed to attend the mediation set by the trial
court. And finally, on the 19 May 2008 hearing for the initial presentation of their
evidence-in-chief, respondents failed to appear.

Whether the questioned dismissal is an interlocutory order.

Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit that the dismissal
of the complaint due to failure to prosecute "shall have the effect of adjudication upon the
merits unless otherwise declared by the Court."
In the herein questioned order of dismissal, there was no mention of any reason why
the ruling should not be considered as adjudication on the merits. The respondent,
therefore, had the right to appeal the dismissal of their complaint. They could have timely
done so. But, as already discussed, they filed the Notice of Appeal only after the lapse of
the reglementary period to do so.
Whether pleadings filed subsequent to the dismissal by the RTC of the case for
failure of respondents to prosecute is proper.
A second motion for reconsideration, as a rule, is a prohibited pleading which shall
not be allowed except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express
leave shall have first been obtained.
The trial court denied respondents' First Motion for Reconsideration on 26 August
2008. The period to appeal is reckoned from the receipt of the denial of their First Motion
for Reconsideration, which was on 10 September 2008 and respondents had until 25
September 2008 to file their Notice of Appeal. But instead of filing a Notice of Appeal,
respondents filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Second Motion for
Reconsideration and their Second Motion for Reconsideration on 18 and 19 September
2008, respectively. Considering that a second motion for reconsideration is a pro forma
motion and does not toll the reglementary period for an appeal, 21 the period to appeal
lapsed. Therefore, the impugned RTC Orders became final and executory. The Notice of
Appeal was correctly denied by the trial court.
However, the correct reason for the denial by the trial court of the Notice of Appeal is
the lapse of the period to appeal, not that the questioned dismissal order is an
interlocutory order.
Pursuant to Rule 41 Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure a
mere interlocutory Order may not be the subject of an appeal, to wit:
"No appeal may be taken from:
a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;

b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking

relief from judgment;
c) An interlocutory order;"

Whether the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the
counterclaim.

The RTC clearly erred when it ordered the dismissal of the counterclaim, since
Section 3, Rule 17 mandates that the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to
the right of the defendant to prosecute the counterclaim in the same or separate action. If
the RTC were to dismiss the counterclaim, it should be on the merits of such
counterclaim. Reversal of the RTC is in order, and a remand is necessary for trial on the
merits of the counterclaim.
Ruling: The litigation on the counterclaim was ordered to proceed.

Remedial Law: Violation of RA 9165; Chain of Custody Rule; substantial

compliance
Case: People vs Mammad et al
Gr. No. 198796, September 16, 2015
Facts:

On August 4, 2004, a confidential informant reported that he had been

buyingshabu from accused-appellants and two (2) other men. Police Chief Inspector
(PCI) Miguelito Paterno thus formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. He
designated PO2 Manny Panlilio as the poseur-buyer

In the buy-bust operation, the informant introduced them to PO2 Panlilio and
told them that the latter was going to buy shabu worth P500.00. Mammad then gave
one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to Tampoy who, in turn handed it to PO2 Panlilio.
After Sariol received the marked money as payment, PO2 Panlilio scratched his head,
as the pre-arranged signal. He then introduced himself as a police officer. The backup police officers rushed to the scene and secured the area. They arrested accusedappellants and were able to recover plastic sachets of shabu from Mammad, Lara, and
Alcayde.

Upon arrival at the police station, the police officers placed their markings on
the seized plastic sachets and turned them over to the investigator. They sent the
specimens to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination.
Subsequently, the recovered substances yielded a positive result for shabu.

The Informations charged Mammad, Tampoy, and Sariol with violation of

Section 5, Article II, or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, while three (3) separate
charges for violating Section 11 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were filed
against Mammad, Nicolas Lara III y Agatep, and Randy Alcayde y Magundayao.

RTC convicted them on the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II,

or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and acquitted them on the charges for violating
Section 11 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug.

They appealed with the CA but it dismissed the case, affirming the decision of
the RTC.

The accused appealed with the SC asserting that assert that the police officers
failed to follow the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Issue and Ruling:

Whether the police officers failed to follow the Chain of Custody Rule laid down
in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

It is settled that failure to strictly comply with the provision of Section 21(1), Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 will not result in an illegal arrest or the seized items being
inadmissible in evidence.
Non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of the IRR of
R.A. No. 9165 shall not render void and invalid such seizure as long as the arresting
officers successfully preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
items.
Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled
Precursors
and
Essential
Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The
PDEAshall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources ofdangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
as well asinstruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated,seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Under Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.
No. 9165, substantial compliance is recognized, thus:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;

Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements

under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.
Moreover, there are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a
buy-bust situation, to wit:
(1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
(2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer;
(3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
(4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to
the court
Ruling: The prosecution was able to establish the unbroken chain of custody over the
recovered drug, from the time it came into the possession of the apprehending officers, to
the time it was brought to the police station, then to the crime laboratory for testing, up to
the time it had to be offered in evidence. The Court, therefore, finds that the courts below
aptly held that the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 had been sufficiently complied
with.