SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250189. February 3, 2020.]
JAY MERVIN B. YAMBAO, petitioner,vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 February 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250189 (Jay Mervin B. Yambao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 18, 2019 2 and October 24, 2019 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158317 for failure of petitioner Jay Mervin B. Yambao (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the denial of his petition for relief from judgment. 4 DcHSEa
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to comply with the twin reglementary periods under Section 3, 5 Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a petition for relief from judgment should be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside, and within the prescribed period of six (6) months from entry of judgment, or other proceeding. Records reveal that the February 2, 2017 Decision 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 132 was received by petitioner's former counsel on February 9, 2017, rendering the assailed Decision final on February 24, 2017. 7 As such, petitioner had six (6) months from February 24, 2017 or until August 22, 2017 within which to file a petition for relief from judgment. 8 Nevertheless, he filed the said petition only on January 25, 2018, which is utterly out of time. 9 Neither did petitioner prove that his failure to file an appeal or any other available remedy was due to excusable negligence of his former counsel. 10
SO ORDERED. (Hernando, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-24.
2.Id. at 30-33. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
3.Id. at 35.
4. See Entry of Judgment with Petition for Relief from Judgment; id. at 64-67.
5. Section 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. — A petition provided for in any of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside; and not more than (6) six months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and such facts constituting the petitioner' good and substantial cause of action or defense.
6. See rollo, pp. 71-74. Penned by Judge Rommel O. Baybay.
7. See id. at 31.
8. See id.
9. It is settled that petition for relief, as an equitable remedy, strict compliance with the applicable reglementary periods for its filing must be satisfactorily shown because a petition from relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order, or proceeding must, at some definite time, attain finality in order to put an end to litigation. As such, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the petition was filed within its reglementary periods, otherwise, the petition may be dismissed outright. (See Lasam v. PNB, G.R. No. 207433, December 5, 2018.)
10. To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, the negligence must be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against." This is to prevent parties from "reviv[ing] the right to appeal [already] lost through inexcusable negligence." (Madarang v. Morales, 735 Phil. 632, 644 (2014)).