Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.
Facts:
Petitioners (Spouses Victor and Milagros Perez, and Cristina Agraviador Aviso) filed a complaint before the RTC of Quezon City for Enforcement of Contract and Damages with Prayer for TRO/Preliminary Injunction against Zescon Land, Inc., its officers, and respondent Antonio Hermano.
The complaint alleged three causes of action arising from transactions involving the same properties:
Enforcement of a Contract to Sell with Zescon Land, Inc., and related claims of fraud/misrepresentation.
Allegations that petitioners were tricked into signing mortgage documents in favor of Hermano (thinking they were related to the Zescon transaction), without receiving consideration, and seeking annulment or nullification of those mortgages.
Claims for damages.
Hermano filed an Answer with Counterclaim, then later (almost two years after) a Motion to Dismiss or to Sever for Separate Trial, claiming misjoinder of causes of action and parties. The RTC granted the motion on February 28, 2000, severing/dismissing the case against Hermano (noting a separate judicial foreclosure case he had filed). Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on May 25, 2000 (notice received June 18, 2000).
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) with the Court of Appeals on August 17, 2000, which was dismissed as untimely (beyond 60 days). CA denied reconsideration. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.
Issues:
Whether the petition for certiorari before the CA was timely filed under the amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in severing/dismissing the complaint against Hermano on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA resolutions, and annulled the RTC orders.
On Timeliness of Certiorari Petition — The CA erred in dismissing the petition as tardy. The amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, effective September 1, 2000) is procedural and curative/retroactive in application to pending cases. It grants a fresh 60-day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration (whether required or not). Petitioners received notice of denial on June 18, 2000, and filed on August 17, 2000 — exactly 60 days (computed per Article 13, Civil Code: exclude first day, include last). Thus, the petition was timely.
On Misjoinder and Severance — The RTC gravely abused its discretion in severing the claims against Hermano. Joinder of causes of action is permissive under Section 5, Rule 2 if: (a) it complies with jurisdiction, venue, and joinder of parties rules; and (b) the causes arise from the same transaction/series of transactions or relation, or involve common questions of fact/law. Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal (Section 6, Rule 2) but only for severance — and even then, joinder rules should be liberally applied to avoid multiplicity of suits and promote speedy/inexpensive determination of actions.
Here, the causes of action stemmed from a series of related transactions over the same properties, involving common issues of fact and law (e.g., fraud/misrepresentation in contract execution, validity of deeds/mortgages, and damages). Separate trials would lead to repetition of evidence and possible conflicting decisions. The severance was improper.
Dispositive Portion:
The CA Resolutions dated October 19, 2000 and March 2, 2001 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The RTC Orders dated February 28, 2000 and May 25, 2000 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is ordered to reinstate respondent Antonio Hermano as one of the defendants in Civil Case No. Q-98-34211. No costs.
This case is a key jurisprudence on liberal construction of joinder rules (Rule 2) and the retroactive application of the 60-day fresh period rule for certiorari petitions under Rule 65.
No comments:
Post a Comment