panay railways inc vs heva mgt and devt corp gr no 154061

7/23/2019 Panay Railways Inc vs Heva Mgt and Devt Corp GR No 154061

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

PANAY RAILWAYS INC.,

Petitioner,

- versus -

HEVA MANAGEMENT and

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

PAMPLONA AGROIND!STRIAL

CORPORATION, and SPO!SES

CANDELARIA DAYOT and

EDM!NDO DAYOT,

Respondents.

G. R. No. "#$%&"

Pre'ent(

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,

PEREZ,SEREO,

RE!ES,and

PER"AS-#ERA#E,JJ.

Pro$ul%ated&

'anuar( )*, )+)

) )

D E C I S I O N

SERENO,J.:

he present Petition ste$s fro$ the dis$issal b( the Re%ional rial Court

RC/ of Iloilo Cit( of a otice of Appeal for petitioners failure to pa( the

correspondin% doc0et fees.

he facts are as follo1s&

On )+ April 23), petitioner Pana( Rail1a(s Inc., a %overn$ent-o1ned and

controlled corporation, e4ecuted a Real Estate Mort%a%e Contract coverin% several

parcels of lands, includin% "ot o. 5*6, in favor of raders Ro(al #an0 R#/ to

secure )+ $illion 1orth of loan and credit acco$$odations. Petitioner e4cluded
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn1


2/7

certain portions of "ot o. 5*6& that alread( sold to Shell Co., Inc. referred to as

5*6-#, a road referred to as 5*6-C, and a s7uatter area 0no1n as 5*6-8.9:

Petitioner failed to pa( its obli%ations to R#, pro$ptin% the ban0 to e4tra-

;udiciall( foreclose the $ort%a%ed properties includin% "ot o. 5*6. On )+'anuar( 235, a Certificate of Sale 1as issued in favor of the ban0 as the hi%hest

bidder and purchaser. Conse7uentl(, the sale of "ot o. 5*6 1as re%istered 1ith

the Re%ister of 8eeds on )3 'anuar( 235 and annotated at the bac0 of the transfer

certificates of title C/ coverin% the $ort%a%ed properties.

hereafter, R# caused the consolidation of the title in its na$e on the basis

of a 8eed of Sale and an Affidavit of Consolidation after petitioner failed to

e4ercise the ri%ht to redee$ the properties. he correspondin% Cs 1ere

subse7uentl( issued in the na$e of the ban0.

On ) ed $ana%er

and officer-in-char%e and 1ith the assistance of counsel, filed a Manifestation and

Motion to =ithdra1 Motion for Suspension of the Petition for the issuance of a

1rit of possession.9):he pertinent portions of the Manifestation and Motion state&

6. hat after %oin% over the records of this case and the case of

raders Ro(al #an0 vs. Pana( Rail1a(, Inc., Civil Case o. 3)3+, PRI

is irrevocabl( 1ithdra1in% its Motion for Suspension referred to inpara%raph above, and its Motion for Reconsideration referred in

para%raph ) above and 1ill accept and abide b( the Septe$ber ), 22+

Order den(in% the Motion


3/7

evidenced b( the Certificate of Sale dated 'anuar( )+, 235 and the

Certificates of itles issued to Petitioner?

5. T*at PRI 6urt*er man-6e't' t*at -t *a' no pa't, pre'ent or

6uture oppo'-t-on to t*e rant o6 t*e Wr-t o6 Po''e''-on to TR3 o;er

t*e par+e1' o6 1and ment-oned -n pararap* $ a5o;e and 'u5?e+t o6

t*-' Pet-t-on and e;en a''um-n aruendo t*at -t *a', PRI

-rre;o+a51< 0a-;e' t*e 'ame. T*at PRI 0-11 e;en a''-'t TR3 -n

'e+ur-n po''e''-on o6 'a-d propert-e' a' 0-tne'' aa-n't '@uatter',

-11ea1 o++upant', and a11 ot*er po''-51e +1a-mant'?

. hat upon e4ecution hereof, PRI ;o1untar-1< 'urrender'

p*


4/7

pointed out that the Manifestation 1as e4ecuted b( petitioners dul( authori>ed

representative 1ith the assistance of counsel. his ad$ission thus operated as a

1aiver barrin% petitioner fro$ clai$in% other1ise.

On Au%ust 22, petitioner filed a otice of Appeal 1ithout pa(in% thenecessar( doc0et fees. I$$ediatel( thereafter, respondents filed a Motion to

8is$iss Appeal on the %round of nonpa($ent of doc0et fees.

In its Opposition,9:petitioner alle%ed that its counsel 1as not (et fa$iliar

1ith the revisions of the Rules of Court that beca$e effective onl( on 'ul( 22.

Its representative 1as li0e1ise not infor$ed b( the court personnel that doc0et fees

needed to be paid upon the filin% of the otice of Appeal.


5/7

hereafter, respondents filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration.

It appears that prior to the pro$ul%ation of the CAs 8ecision, this Court

issued Ad$inistrative Matter A.M./ o. ++-)-+-SC 1hich too0 effect on Ma(

)+++, a$endin% Rule @, Sec. and Sec. 6 of Rule @ of the 22 Revised Rulesof Court. he circular e4pressl( provided that trial courts $a(, motu proprioor

upon $otion, dis$iss an appeal for bein% filed out of ti$e or for nonpa($ent of

doc0et and other la1ful fees 1ithin the re%le$entar( period. Subse7uentl(,

Circular o. @3-)+++96:1as issued on )2 Au%ust )+++ and 1as addressed to all

lo1er courts.

#( virtue of the a$end$ent to Sec. @, the CA upheld the 7uestioned Orders

of the trial court b( issuin% the assailed A$ended 8ecision9@:in the present Petition

%rantin% respondents Motion for Reconsideration.

he CAs action pro$pted petitioner to file a Motion for Reconsideration

alle%in% that SC Circular o. @3-)+++ should not be %iven retroactive effect. It also

alle%ed that the CA should consider the case as e4ceptionall( $eritorious.

Petitioners counsel, Att(. Re4es B. Ale;ano, e4plained that he 1as (et to fa$iliari>e

hi$self 1ith the Revised Rules of Court, 1hich beca$e effective a little over a

$onth before he filed the otice of Appeal. e 1as thus not a1are that the

nonpa($ent of doc0et fees $i%ht lead to the dis$issal of the case.

On 6+ Ma( )++), the CA issued the assailed Resolution9*:den(in%

petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.

ence, this Petition.

Petitioner alle%es that the CA erred in sustainin% the RCs dis$issal of the

otice of Appeal. Petitioner contends that the CA had e4clusive ;urisdiction to

dis$iss the otice of Appeal at the ti$e of filin%. Alternativel(, petitioner ar%ues

that 1hile the appeal 1as dis$issible for failure to pa( doc0et fees, substantial;ustice de$ands that procedural rules be rela4ed in this case.

he Petition has no $erit.

Statutes and rules re%ulatin% the procedure of courts are considered

applicable to actions pendin% and unresolved at the ti$e of their passa%e.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn16


6/7

Procedural la1s and rules are retroactive in that sense and to that e4tent. he effect

of procedural statutes and rules on the ri%hts of a liti%ant $a( not preclude their

retroactive application to pendin% actions. his retroactive application does not

violate an( ri%ht of a person adversel( affected. either is it constitutionall(

ob;ectionable. he reason is that, as a %eneral rule, no vested ri%ht $a( attach to orarise fro$ procedural la1s and rules. It has been held that a person has no vested

ri%ht in an( particular re$ed(, and a liti%ant cannot insist on the application to the

trial of his case, 1hether civil or cri$inal, of an( other than the e4istin% rules of

procedure.95:More so 1hen, as in this case, petitioner ad$its that it 1as not able to

pa( the doc0et fees on ti$e. Clearl(, there 1ere no substantive ri%hts to spea0 of

1hen the RC dis$issed the otice of Appeal.

he ar%u$ent that the CA had the e4clusive ;urisdiction to dis$iss the

appeal has no $erit. =hen this Court accordin%l( a$ended Sec. 6 of Rule @

throu%h A.M. o. ++-)-+-SC, the RCs dis$issal of the action $a( be considered

to have had the i$pri$atur of the Court. hus, the CA co$$itted no reversible

error 1hen it sustained the dis$issal of the appeal, ta0in% note of its directive on

the $atter prior to the pro$ul%ation of its 8ecision.

As earl( as 26), inLazaro v. Endencia,9:1e have held that the pa($ent of

the full a$ount of the doc0et fees is an indispensable step for the perfection of an

appeal.he Court ac7uires ;urisdiction over an( case onl( upon the pa($ent of the

prescribed doc0et fees.93:

Moreover, the ri%ht to appeal is not a natural ri%ht and is not part of due

process. It is $erel( a statutor( privile%e, 1hich $a( be e4ercised onl( in

accordance 1ith the la1.92:

=e have repeatedl( stated that the ter$ substantial ;ustice is not a $a%ic

1and that 1ould auto$aticall( co$pel this Court to suspend procedural rules.

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dis$issed si$pl( because their non-

observance $a( result in pre;udice to a part(s substantive ri%hts. "i0e all other

rules, the( are re7uired to be follo1ed, e4cept onl( for the $ost persuasive of

reasons 1hen the( $a( be rela4ed to relieve liti%ants of an in;ustice not

co$$ensurate 1ith the de%ree of their thou%htlessness in not co$pl(in% 1ith the

procedure prescribed.9)+:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn21


7/7

=e cannot consider counsels failure to fa$iliari>e hi$self 1ith the Revised

Rules of Court as a persuasive reason to rela4 the application of the Rules. It is

1ell-settled that the ne%li%ence of counsel binds the client. his principle is based

on the rule that an( act perfor$ed b( la1(ers 1ithin the scope of their %eneral or

i$plied authorit( is re%arded as an act of the client. Conse7uentl(, the $ista0e orne%li%ence of the counsel of petitioner $a( result in the rendition of an

unfavorable ;ud%$ent a%ainst it.9):

WHEREORE, in vie1 of the fore%oin%, the Petition is DENIEDfor lac0

of $erit.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/154061.htm#_ftn22

panay railways inc vs heva mgt and devt corp gr no 154061

Documents