Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 463 views

    4 Madarang Et Al v. Spouses Morales

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    The petitioners sued the respondents who then won their case in the RTC. The petitioners' counsel filed their notice of appeal over 150 days late, blaming their 80-year-old counsel. The RTC and CA denied the petitioner's request for relief. The Supreme Court also denies the request, as the petition was filed over 6 months after the judgment, violating the mandatory period under the rules. The court also found the excuse of counsel's age being prejudicial without evidence it caused negligence that could not be prevented through diligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4 Madarang Et Al v. Spouses Morales

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    463 views1 page
    The petitioners sued the respondents who then won their case in the RTC. The petitioners' counsel filed their notice of appeal over 150 days late, blaming their 80-year-old counsel. The RTC and CA denied the petitioner's request for relief. The Supreme Court also denies the request, as the petition was filed over 6 months after the judgment, violating the mandatory period under the rules. The court also found the excuse of counsel's age being prejudicial without evidence it caused negligence that could not be prevented through diligence.

    Original Title

    4 Madarang et al v. Spouses Morales

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners sued the respondents who then won their case in the RTC. The petitioners' counsel filed their notice of appeal over 150 days late, blaming their 80-year-old counsel. The RTC and CA denied the petitioner's request for relief. The Supreme Court also denies the request, as the petition was filed over 6 months after the judgment, violating the mandatory period under the rules. The court also found the excuse of counsel's age being prejudicial without evidence it caused negligence that could not be prevented through diligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    463 views1 page

    4 Madarang Et Al v. Spouses Morales

    Uploaded by

    AntonJohnVincentFrias
    The petitioners sued the respondents who then won their case in the RTC. The petitioners' counsel filed their notice of appeal over 150 days late, blaming their 80-year-old counsel. The RTC and CA denied the petitioner's request for relief. The Supreme Court also denies the request, as the petition was filed over 6 months after the judgment, violating the mandatory period under the rules. The court also found the excuse of counsel's age being prejudicial without evidence it caused negligence that could not be prevented through diligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Petition for Relief from Judgment

    Madarang et al v. Spouses Morales

    Facts:

    The Spouses sued Madarang et al because they made misrepresentations to the


    former. The RTC decided against Madarang et al. On January 29, 2010, their counsel received
    a copy of the said decision. Their counsel filed the Notice of Appeal only on August 11, 2010,
    which was beyond the 15-day period to appeal. They blamed their 80-year old counsel for the
    late filing of the appeal. On the other hand, they later filed their Petition for Relief on
    September 24, 2010, arguing on their 80-year-old counsel’s gross negligence which is
    excusable, that he failed to file the Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period. The RTC
    denied it. The CA affirmed it. Thus their Petition.

    Issue:

    Should the Petition for Relief from Judgment be granted?

    Ruling:

    No, because under the Rules of Court and case law,the party must file it within 60 days
    from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months after the judgment or final order was
    entered; otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed outright. The double period required under
    Section 3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied with.

    Here, on January 29, 2010, Madarang et al’s counsel received a copy of the decision,
    the period to appeal shall be counted from that date. Thus, the decision became final on
    February 13, 2010, which is 15 days after January 29, 2010.

    Therefore, Madarang et al had until August 12, 2010, to file a Petition for Relief, which is
    six (6) months from February 13, 2010. However, they filed their Petition for Relief on
    September 24, 2010, which is beyond six (6) months from finality of judgment.

    Lastly, noted further that if the Petition for Relief is filed on the ground of excusable
    negligence of counsel, the party must show that their counsel’s negligence could not have
    been prevented using ordinary diligence and prudence.

    Here, the mere allegation that there is excusable negligence simply because counsel
    was 80 years old is a prejudicial slur to senior citizens. 

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy