View full case

TANCREDO REDEÑA v. CA

FACTS:

Tancredo Redeña filed an action for partition against his half-brother, Leocadio Redeña, before the RTC. The complaint alleged that they are both sons of Maximo Redeña and that several properties were left by Maximo to be partitioned. The trial court ordered the partition of a specific property co-owned by Tancredo and Leocadio. Tancredo filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to file the required appellant's brief, resulting in the CA considering the appeal abandoned and dismissing it. Tancredo filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, which was denied. He then filed a Petition for Relief with the CA, seeking to set aside the dismissal resolution and reinstate his appeal, but the CA denied the petition, stating that a petition for relief is not available in the CA. Tancredo's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, claiming that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that a petition for relief is not available in the CA and refusing to grant his petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court should grant the petition despite the showing of fraud and mistake.

  2. Whether the petitioner has a good and substantial cause of action against the private respondent.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner's appeal was properly dismissed by the CA.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to relief under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.

  5. Whether or not the extraordinary writ of certiorari should be issued in this case.

RULING:

  1. The Court dismisses the petition. The Court held that the petition cannot be granted even if there is a showing of fraud and mistake because there is no cogent basis to favorably rule on the merits of the appeal. The Court also ruled that the petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court cannot be availed of in the Court of Appeals (CA) as it is a court of appellate jurisdiction. The petition for relief should be filed and resolved by the same court and in the same case from which the petition arose.

  2. The CA properly dismissed the petitioner's appeal as abandoned. The petitioner failed to file his appellant's brief despite being given the opportunity to do so. Thus, the appeal was considered abandoned and dismissed.

  3. The petitioner is not entitled to relief under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. He failed to show that he was prevented from filing his notice of appeal by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Furthermore, the relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a party who loses a remedy by his own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure by counsel.

  4. The extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot be issued in this case. There is no showing of patent and gross abuse of discretion by the CA. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and must not subvert substantial justice.

  • Courts have the power and duty to construe and apply technical rules liberally in favor of substantive law and substantial justice.

  • This power to liberally construe and suspend the rules presupposes the existence of substantial rights in favor of which the strict application of technical rules should concede.

  • A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy.

  • Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effect of a judgment when the loss of the remedy at law is due to their own negligence or mistaken mode of procedure.

  • A petition for relief cannot be availed of in the Court of Appeals, as the procedure for relief from a judgment, final order, or proceeding should be followed in the court where the petition arose.

  • Clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence, and omission of their counsel, except in exceptional cases.

  • Relief under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Rules of Court will not be granted when the loss of the remedy of law was due to the petitioner's own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure by counsel.

  • The extraordinary writ of certiorari may be issued only when there is a clear showing of patent and gross abuse of discretion by the lower court.