SC: Lawyers’ error in missing appeal date for client to bear

The Supreme Court (SC) has resolved the pending case over a bank’s foreclosure of the St. James School.

In its decision, the high court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, denied for lack of merit the petition filed the school’s owner, Jaime Torres, against the China Banking Corpn.

The SC also affirmed the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling on the case.

Associate Justice Renato Corona, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Antonio Nachura and Jose Mendoza concurred with Peralta’s ruling.

Among other things, Torres, in his appeal to the CA, said when he inquired about the status of this case from his his lawyer, a certain Atty. Britanico, the latter did not inform him about the CA’s resolution which denied his motion for reconsideration, He said he could have appealed the resolution, together with the decision, to the CA.

He said he learned that the motion for reconsideration had already been denied only after he received a copy of the CA resolution dated Sept. 10, 2004, denying his motion and that since that Atty. Britanico mismanaged his case and failed to discharge his duties efficiently, and his actuation in this case should not be binding on him as the client, who had no participation whatsoever in the omission or neglect of his former counsel.

Ruling against Torres, the SC said “the failure to file an appeal from the decision rendering it final and executory is not a denial of due process.”

“The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law,” the tribunal said, adding that “the proper remedy for allegations of mistake or inexcusable negligence of counsel, which prevented a party from taking an appeal, is a petition for relief.”

The case started on Aug. 27, 1986 when Torres, as owner of St. James School, and respondent China Banking Corp. executed a mortgage agreement over parcels of land to secure petitioner’s loan in the amount of P4,600,000.

The loan was evidenced by a promissory note dated which stated that the “loan was repayable within a period of five years with interest, payable monthly in arrears at 20 percent per annum commencing on Sept. 22, 1986 until fully paid.”

The principal was payable in 16 equal quarterly amortizations of P287,500 each, commencing on Nov. 23, 1987, until fully paid. The transaction was actually an assumption of the mortgage loan secured by the previous owners of the subject properties.

Thereafter, petitioner requested the restructuring of the loan. Petitioner first paid the amount of P200,000 and, later, the amount of P654,465.75 to complete compliance with the requirements to restructure the loan. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune