G.R. No. 196765 - FRANCIS M. ZOSA, NORA M. ZOSA AND MANUEL M. ZOSA, JR., VS. CONSILIUM, INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, by reason of preponderance of evidence, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants. The court hereby: Declares the Deed of Absolute Sale as void; and Orders the cancellation of TCT No. T-113390 which was issued in the name of defendants Sps. Paypa. All other claims, as well as the counterclaims are hereby considered DISMISSED. [8] On October 17, 2007, Consilium filed a Notice of Appeal, [9] alleging to have received the Decision of the RTC on October 10, 2007. Note, however, that the corresponding appeal fee was paid only on October 31, 2007, or six days from October 25, 2007, the last day to perfect an appeal. The Zosas opposed the Notice of Appeal on the ground that the appeal was "filed out of time x x x while the Notice of Appeal was filed on October 17, 2007, the docket/appeal fee was paid only on October 31, 2007 which was beyond the period x x x to file the Notice of Appeal." [10] In Consilium's Comment to the Zosas' Opposition (to the Notice of Appeal), it explained that such omission, however, was sheer inadvertence, i.e. ,"[t]hat after the Notice of Appeal was prepared by undersigned counsel, [he] left for Basilan to attend to some pressing engagements with the Basilan Electric Cooperative of which he is the designated Project Supervisor, in charge for its rehabilitation x x x instruction[s] were given to his clerk Jonathan Cabañez to file the Notice of Appeal as well as to pay the docket fee x x x [t]hat, while the Notice of Appeal was filed, the aforenamed clerk forgot to pay the docket fee as required x x x upon the return of the undersigned counsel on October 31, 2007, he found out that the docket fee was not paid, thus, he immediately caused the payment of the same." It insisted that such "inadvertence" was a case of excusable negligence. [11] Acting on the Notice of Appeal, the RTC resolved to deny due course thereto in an Order dated January 15, 2007, viz.: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Notice of Appeal filed by the Intervenor Consilium, Inc. is hereby denied due course. [12] On February 7, 2008, Consilium moved for the reconsideration of the above-mentioned Order, and prayed for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The motion was set for hearing on February 22, 2008 per the Notice of Hearing stated in the said motion. The Zosas, however, sought the outright denial of Consilium's motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was set for hearing beyond the 10-day period prescribed in Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The RTC, for its part, set the hearing of Consilium's motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2008. [13] And in an Order dated March 3, 2008, the RTC treated the motion as a mere scrap of paper, viz.: The Court, however, regrets that it cannot rule on the motion for reconsideration filed by [the] intervenor thru counsel, on the ground that the same was received by this Court on February 7, 2008 and yet, the Motion was set for hea