Limpot v CA (Civil Procedure)

Aura Limpot v. CA, Lim, Go, et. Al.

Facts:

·       Petitioner contends she has been deprived of her day in court because of strict adherence to the rules of court, viz:

-       October 3, 1967: private respondents filed for a complaint of “quieting of title and recovery of possession” at CFI of Leyte;

-       August 12, 1972: telegraphic motion for postponement of hearing set on August 22, 1972;

-       On day of scheduled hearing (Aug 22), private respondent moved to dismiss on lack of notice;

-       Judge denied the motion and continued on the hearing scheduled; instead of proceeding however, he required petitioner to submit within 5 days proof that respondent had been notified. No such proof was submitted

-       Judge submitted the case for decision

-       10 days after order: Petitioner filed reconsideration (they had a misunderstanding with client); this was denied;

-       There was a change of counsel;

Lower court decisions:

CFI of S. Leyte:

-       March 15, 1973: decision on the merits in favor of private respondents (copy of decision received by petitioner on March 23, 1973);

-       24 days thereafter: petitioner filed a motion for new trial (was denied);

-       8 days from denial of motion of new trial: petitioner filed notice of appeal (denied by CA);

-       Certiori SC: denied but reconsidered

Issue:

WON petitioner was denied due process because of strict application of the rules of court.

Ruling: No, petitioner has only herself to blame if judgment was rendered against her.

-       Petitioner contention: denial of her motion for postponement deprived her of her time to fully ventilate her side (SC: She was heard by the trial court, if it nevertheless did not accept her explanation of honest mistake or excusable negligence, this did not signify that she was denied due process);

-       SC: Atty Alfaro had all of ten days after sending his telegrams to file a regular motion for postponement, with copies furnished to private respondent, conformably to the Rules of Court

-       1^st ground of denial: the motion for new trial filed by petitioner was deficient, there was no affidavit of merit

-       2^nd ground of denial:

From March 23, 1973 to April 16, 1973, the date of motion of new trial, 24 days has lapsed; then from May 25, the date defendant received a copy of order denying trial, to June 1, date of filing of record on appeal, 8 days has lapsed. Total of 32 days, beyond the 30-days reglementary period;

Important Doctrine:

“Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed only for the most persuasive reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.”