34 Sy Vs Local Government of QC

HENRY L. SY, Petitioner, v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, Respondent.
G.R. NO. 202690, June 05, 2013 PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Procedural rules may, nonetheless, be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed. Corollarily, the rule, which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client, may not be strictly followed
where observance of it would result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interest of
justice so requires.
FACTS: On November 7, 1996, the City, through then Mayor Ismael Mathay, Jr., filed a complaint
for expropriation with the RTC in order to acquire a 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land, owned and
registered under the name of Sy (subject property), which was intended to be used as a site for a
multi-purpose barangay hall, day-care center, playground and community activity center for the
benefit of the residents of Barangay Balingasa, Balintawak, Quezon City. The requisite ordinance to
undertake the aforesaid expropriation namely, Ordinance No. Sp-181, s-94, was enacted on April 12,
1994.
On March 18, 1997, pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160), otherwise known
as the "Local Government Code of 1991," the City deposited the amount of P241,090.00 with the
Office of the Clerk of Court, representing 15% of the fair market value of the subject property
based on its tax declaration.
During the preliminary conference on November 8, 2006, Sy did not question the City’s right to
expropriate the subject property. Thus, only the amount of just compensation remained at issue.
On July 6, 2006, the RTC appointed Edgardo Ostaco (Commissioner Ostaco), Engr. Victor Salinas
(Commissioner Salinas) and Atty. Carlo Alcantara (Commissioner Alcantara) as commissioners to
determine the proper amount of just compensation to be paid by the City for the subject property.
Subsequently, Commissioners Ostaco and Alcantara, in a Report dated February 11, 2008,
recommended the payment of P5,500.00 per sq. m., to be computed from the date of the filing of
the expropriation complaint, or on November 7, 1996. On the other hand, Commissioner Salinas
filed a separate Report dated March 7, 2008, recommending the higher amount of P13,500.00 per
sq. m. as just compensation.
ISSUES: Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed Sy’s motion for reconsideration for being filed
out of time?
RULING: At the outset, the Court observes that Sy’s motion for reconsideration was filed out of
time and thus, was properly dismissed by the CA. Records show that, as per the Postmaster’s
Certification, the CA’s January 20, 2012 Decision was received by Sy on January 26, 2012 and as
such, any motion for reconsideration therefrom should have been filed not later than fifteen (15)
days from receipt, or on February 10, 2012. However, Sy filed his motion for reconsideration
(subject motion) a day late, or on February 13, 2012, which thus, renders the CA decision final and
executory.
In this regard, it is apt to mention that Sy’s counsel, Atty. Tranquilino F. Meris (Atty. Meris), claims
that his secretary’s inadvertent placing of the date January 27, 2012, instead of January 26, 2012, on
the Notice of Decision constitutes excusable negligence which should therefore, justify a relaxation
of the rules.
The assertion is untenable.
A claim of excusable negligence does not loosely warrant a relaxation of the rules. Verily, the party
invoking such should be able to show that the procedural oversight or lapse is attended by a
genuine miscalculation or unforeseen fortuitousness which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against so as to justify the relief sought. The standard of care required is that
which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his important business. In this accord, the duty rests
on every counsel to see to adopt and strictly maintain a system that will efficiently take into account
all court notices sent to him. Applying these principles, the Court cannot excuse Atty. Meris’ misstep
based on his proffered reasons. Evidently, the erroneous stamping of the Notice of Decision could
have been averted if only he had instituted a credible filing system in his office to account for
oversights such as that committed by his secretary. Indeed, ordinary prudence could have prevented
such mistake.
Be that as it may, procedural rules may, nonetheless, be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons in
order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complying with the procedure prescribed. Corollarily, the rule, which states that the mistakes of
counsel bind the client, may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in the
outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interest of justice so requires.
As applied in this case, the Court finds that the procedural consequence of the above-discussed one-
day delay in the filing of the subject motion – which, as a matter of course, should render the CA’s
January 20, 2012 Decision already final and executory and hence, bar the instant petition – is
incommensurate to the injustice which Sy may suffer. This is in line with the Court’s observation
that the amount of just compensation, the rate of legal interest, as well as the time of its accrual,
were incorrectly adjudged by both the RTC and the CA, contrary to existing jurisprudence. In this
respect, the Court deems it proper to relax the rules of procedure and thus, proceed to resolve these
substantive issues.
SUMMARY
Q: The petitioner in this case received an adverse judgment regarding an expropriation

case. His lawyer, upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, after the RTC has rendered the
adverse judgment was not able to file the motion for reconsideration a day late. The
question in this case, is whether the rules of procedure should be relaxed when there was
clear negligence on the part of counsel?
A: Yes. In this case, Procedural rules may, nonetheless, be relaxed for the most persuasive of
reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. Corollarily, the rule, which states
that the mistakes of counsel bind the client, may not be strictly followed where observance of it
would result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interest of
justice so requires (Henry Sy vs Local Government of Quezon city G.R. NO. 202690, June 05, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: )

34 Sy Vs Local Government of QC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 Sy Vs Local Government of QC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 Sy Vs Local Government of QC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HENRY L. SY, Petitioner, v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

G.R. NO. 202690, June 05, 2013 PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The assertion is untenable.

Q: The petitioner in this case received an adverse judgment regarding an expropriation

You might also like