SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225727. September 28, 2016.]
HEIRS OF ARTURO GARCIA AS REPRESENTED BY [THEIR] ATTY.-IN-FACT, PHILIP CAMARA, petitioners, vs. RENATO GRANADA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225727 — Heirs of Arturo Garcia as represented by [their] Atty.-in-Fact, Philip Camara vs. Renato Granada, et al.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101109 committed reversible error in issuing its assailed Decision dated March 2, 2016 and Resolution dated July 4, 2016, which respectively denied the appeal filed therewith and the motion for reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners insist that they were denied due process when they were not notified of the hearings on June 15, 2010 and July 13, 2010. They assert that they were precluded from actively participating in the trial of the case and in the process were denied their right to cross-examine respondents' witnesses.
The Court, however, is not inclined to depart from the ruling of the CA. As correctly ratiocinated by the appellate court, petitioners were notified of the withdrawal of Atty. Jose F. Pacis (Atty. Pacis) through the Order dated March 30, 2010. They were likewise furnished a copy of the Order dated September 2, 2010 admitting respondents' written formal offer of evidence. By these, they should have been put on guard that the proceedings in the trial court were still ongoing. However, they did nothing. They waited until an adverse decision was issued against them and worse, allowed the said decision to become final and executory before they filed a motion for reconsideration. As observed by the CA, petitioners' attitude showed negligence in pursuing their cause and manifested their lack of interest in their case. In as much as the Court has stressed that litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case, 1 more vigilance was expected of petitioners here since they were no longer represented by counsel. Petitioners should not have been complacent. As aptly stated by the CA:
. . . [C]onsidering that [petitioners] had no more counsel of record, had they really been careful and intent [i]n pursuing their case, they themselves could have communicated with the trial court as regards the status of their case, more so, because they had not engaged any counsel, and, furthermore, because they had been notified that a certain Atty. Pacis who supposedly represented them, had already withdrawn his appearance. Had they checked with the trial court, they would have been made aware that it was of necessity that they engage the professional services of a lawyer for their case, as legal proceedings were not put on hold. They, however, did not do so. On their part, therefore, they can be said to have participatory negligence which cannot relieve them of the consequences of an adverse decision. 2 CaSAcH
Moreover, petitioners do not dispute that their motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated September 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Iba, Zambales (RTC) was filed beyond the reglementary period. Said trial court in its February 26, 2013 Order, as affirmed by the CA, was therefore correct in ruling that the said RTC Decision had already become final at the time petitioners' motion for reconsideration was filed. Hence, as held by the CA, the RTC did not err in setting aside the June 15, 2011 Order and in reinstating the September 21, 2010 Decision.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 2, 2016 and July 4, 2016, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 101109.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2374 dated September 14, 2016)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Foculan-Fundalan vs. Sps. Ocial, G.R. No. 194516, June 17, 2015.
2. Rollo, pp. 58-59.