Subject Constitutional Law 2

Title Tupas v. Court of Appeals

Citation G.R. No. 89571

Date February 6, 1991

Full-text https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_89571_1991.html

PONENTE

Cruz, J.

COMPLAINANT/S RESPONDENT/S

FRANCISCO LIM TUPAS and IGNACIO LIM Court of Appeals

TUPAS

RELEVANT PROVISION/S

Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution (On Due Process)

DOCTRINE

aequetas nunquam contravenit legis (Equity never contravenes the law)

Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial
and extrajudicial proceedings.
- It is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and adjective law are contradictory to each other or, as has often been
suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it will result in prejudice to the substantive
rights of the litigants
- Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such
rights, be it the Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court.
(Limpot v. Court of Appeals)

SUBSTANTIVE & PROCEDURAL FACTS

1. Initial resolution: The Court denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on October 12, 1989; The
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 23, 1989.
2. Appeal process:
The petitioners received a copy of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City on April 3, 1989.
A motion for reconsideration was filed on April 17, 1989.
The order denying the motion was received by the petitioners’ counsel on May 9, 1989.
The petition for review with the Court of Appeals was filed on May 23, 1989, 14 days later than the remainder of the
15-day reglementary period.
3. Ruling in Lascamana v. Court of Appeals was considered: “If a motion for reconsideration is filed with and denied by a RTC,
the movant has only the remaining period within which to file a petition for review. Hence, it may be necessary to file a motion
with CA for extension of time to file such petition.”

ISSUE/S RULING

WON the petitioners were denied of due process due to the counsel’s late filing NO
RATIONALE

1. Rules of Procedure and Substantive Rights

• Rules of procedure are meant to ensure orderly administration of justice and protection of substantive rights.
• Substantive law and adjective law are not contradictory; both are necessary for the just and speedy resolution of
disputes.
• Both substantive and procedural rights are guaranteed by due process.

2. Responsibility of Clients for Their Counsel’s Mistakes

• The argument that clients should not be prejudiced by their counsel’s mistakes is not acceptable.
• Clients are bound by the acts of their counsel, including mistakes.
• The administration of justice could be encumbered if clients could disauthorize their counsel on the grounds of
being laymen.

3. Consequences of Counsel’s Ineptitude

• The petitioner’s request to nullify all antecedent proceedings due to his counsel’s ineptitude is not plausible.
• Allowing every shortcoming of counsel to be challenged by the client would render court proceedings indefinite
and subject to reopening.

4. Dilatory Tactics and Equity

• The petitioners’ delay in moving for reconsideration and filing the petition for review smacks of a dilatory tactic.
• Equity cannot soften the rigor of the law that the petitioners have not chosen to observe.
• Equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. It cannot supplant the law but can
supplement it.
• Emotional appeals for justice cannot justify disregard of the mandate of the law.

FINAL DECISION

● WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality. It is so ordered