Jamero vs. Melicor

A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to provide that the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, applies retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage, being procedural or remedial in character. An interlocutory order appointing a special administrator, while non-appealable, may nevertheless be assailed via certiorari when rendered with grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioner Margarito R. Jamero and private respondent Ernesto R. Jamero are brothers, both claiming interest in the estate of their deceased mother, Consuelo Jamero. The dispute arose in the context of Special Proceedings No. 1618 for the administration and settlement of the decedent's estate, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tagbilaran City. The procedural backdrop involves the rules on the period for filing petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, and subsequently by A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC.

Petitioner Margarito R. Jamero filed Special Proceedings No. 1618 for the Administration and Settlement of the Estate of his deceased mother Consuelo Jamero with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tagbilaran City. Private respondent Ernesto R. Jamero, petitioner's brother, opposed the latter's petition for appointment as regular administrator of the estate.

Upon motion of private respondent Ernesto and over the objections of petitioner, the RTC, in its Order dated December 4, 1998, appointed Atty. Alberto Bautista as special administrator pending the appointment of a regular administrator. Petitioner received said Order on December 11, 1998 and filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998, the last day of the 15-day reglementary period, that is, December 26, 1998, falling on a Saturday during which, according to petitioner, the Bureau of Post Office held no office. The court a quo denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its Order dated February 26, 1999, which petitioner received on March 4, 1999.

On April 21, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 53020. On June 14, 1999, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition, noting that the petition failed to state the date when petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration, in violation of Section 3, paragraph 2, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended by Circular No. 39-98. The CA further stated that even if the date of the motion for reconsideration (December 26, 1998) were considered as the date of its filing, the petition would be late by three days. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 24, 1999, with the CA ruling that it had no authority to extend the definitive period fixed in Section 4, Rule 65, and that the appointment of a special administrator is discretionary and interlocutory, hence not appealable nor subject to certiorari.

Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Private respondent Ernesto Jamero, who was not a party in CA-G.R. SP No. 53020, filed his Comment contending that in the absence of clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that the decision is outrageously wrong, the judgment of the CA must be regarded as final. In his Reply, petitioner pointed out that the issue on the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari with the CA had become moot and academic in view of A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to provide that the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

Private respondent Bautista, the special administrator, failed to submit his memorandum despite due notice, resulting in a Resolution directing the NBI to arrest and detain him until he paid a ₱4,000.00 fine and filed his explanation and memorandum. The Court dispensed with his memorandum in view of his Comments stating that he has no personal interest in the subject matter and that he will abide by whatever judgment the Court may issue, but he was not relieved from paying the fine.

• Retroactive Application of A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC: Petitioner argued that the issue on the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari with the CA had become moot and academic in view of A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to count the 60-day period from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
• Technicality vs. Substantive Merits: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in allowing technicality to override and take precedence over the demonstrated substantive merits of the petition.
• Appointment of Special Administrator: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in ruling that the appointment of a special administrator is discretionary to the appointing court and that being an interlocutory order, the same is not appealable nor subject to certiorari.
• Unnecessary Appointment: Petitioner argued that since Consuelo Jamero died intestate leaving no debts, the appointment of a special administrator was not necessary as it would only unduly burden or expose the estate to being wasted or squandered.
• Order of Preference: Petitioner argued that assuming a special administrator was necessary, the order of preference prescribed by the rules in the appointment of regular administrator should have been observed, and the trial court should have designated petitioner who possesses beneficial interests as a co-owner of the estate, rather than Atty. Bautista who is only a third party.
• Derogation of Rights: Petitioner argued that assuming the designation of Atty. Bautista was proper, the authority of a special administrator cannot be exercised in derogation of petitioner's rights as a co-owner of the properties forming part of the estate.

• Finality of CA Judgment: Private respondent Ernesto Jamero contended that in the absence of clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that the decision is outrageously wrong, conspicuously mistaken and whimsically arrived at, the judgment of the CA must be regarded as final, citing Macapagal vs. CA and Bustamante, Jr. vs. NLRC.
• No Personal Interest: Private respondent Bautista stated in his Comments that he has no personal interest in the subject matter of the petition and the subject matter of Special Proceedings No. 1618, and that he will abide by whatever judgment/order/resolution that the Court may issue in this case.

• Timeliness of Certiorari Petition: Whether the CA erred in dismissing CA-G.R. SP No. 53020 for having been filed out of time.
• Nature of the Appointment of Special Administrator: Whether the CA erred in ruling that the appointment of special administrator is discretionary to the appointing court and that being an interlocutory order, the same is not appealable nor subject to certiorari.
• Validity of the Appointment: Whether the appointment of a special administrator is in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

• Timeliness of Certiorari Petition: Yes, the CA erred. A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, being procedural or remedial in character, should be given retroactive effect. Applying the same to CA-G.R. SP No. 53020, petitioner would have had sixty days from March 4, 1999 or until May 3, 1999 within which to file his petition in the CA; the petition was filed on April 21, 1999, hence timely.
• Nature of the Appointment of Special Administrator: No, the CA did not err in this regard. The appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC, and non-appealable. However, it may be subject of certiorari if it can be shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Validity of the Appointment: The third issue must be passed upon by the CA in the petition for certiorari filed with it, and the case was remanded for that purpose.

• Timeliness of Certiorari Petition: The Court found merit in petitioner's claim that A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, further amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, should be given retroactive effect. Citing Republic vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the amendment is procedural or remedial in character; it does not create new or remove vested rights but only operates in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation of statutes. They may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage without violating any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, insomuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure. Applying the circular to CA-G.R. SP No. 53020, petitioner would have had sixty days from March 4, 1999 or until May 3, 1999 within which to file his petition in the CA. The petition for certiorari was filed on April 21, 1999, well within the period. However, far from rendering the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 53020 moot and academic, as claimed by petitioner, the third issue will have to be passed upon by the CA in the petition for certiorari filed with it.
• Nature of the Appointment of Special Administrator: The Court stated that indeed, the appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary on the part of the RTC and non-appealable. However, it may be subject of certiorari if it can be shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion or lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. Citing Pefianco vs. Moral, the Court held that even as the trial court's order may merely be interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the same when it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion. It is for this reason that the third issue will have to be considered and passed upon by the CA.
• Validity of the Appointment: The Court did not rule on the merits of the appointment itself, as the case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings to pass upon this issue.

• Retroactive Application of Procedural Rules — Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation of statutes. They may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure. The Court applied this doctrine to A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, holding that the amendment should be given retroactive effect to the pending certiorari petition before the CA.
• Certiorari as Remedy for Grave Abuse of Discretion in Interlocutory Orders — Even as a trial court's order may merely be interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the same when it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that while the appointment of a special administrator is interlocutory, discretionary, and non-appealable, it may nevertheless be subject to certiorari upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

• "The amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC quoted above is procedural or remedial in character. It does not create new or remove vested rights but only operates in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. It is settled that procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation of statutes. They may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure." — This passage, quoted from Republic vs. Court of Appeals, states the controlling doctrine on the retroactive application of procedural rules and forms the basis for the Court's ruling that the amended Section 4, Rule 65 applies to petitioner's pending certiorari petition.
• "even as the trial court's order may merely be interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the same when it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion." — This passage, quoted from Pefianco vs. Moral, establishes the principle that certiorari lies against interlocutory orders when grave abuse of discretion is shown, and was the basis for remanding the case to the CA to pass upon the substantive issue of the appointment.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141530, March 18, 2003, 399 SCRA 277 — Controlling precedent on the retroactive application of procedural rules; cited for the proposition that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC is procedural or remedial in character and may be given retroactive effect to pending actions.
• Pefianco vs. Moral, G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 439 — Controlling precedent on certiorari as the proper remedy to annul an interlocutory order rendered with grave abuse of discretion.
• Macapagal vs. CA, G.R. No. 110610, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 491 — Cited by private respondent Ernesto Jamero for the proposition that in the absence of clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that the decision is outrageously wrong, the judgment of the CA must be regarded as final.
• Bustamante, Jr. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 73647, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 710 — Cited by private respondent Ernesto Jamero for the same proposition regarding finality of CA judgments.

• Section 3, paragraph 2, Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Circular No. 39-98 — Requires that in actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject hereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received. The CA cited this provision in dismissing petitioner's certiorari petition for failure to state the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration.
• Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Circular No. 39-98 — Provided that the petition for certiorari may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed, and that if a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the period is interrupted, with the remaining period to file the petition not less than five (5) days reckoned from notice of denial. The CA applied this provision in dismissing the petition as late by three days.
• Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. Circular No. 00-2-03-SC — Provides that the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution, and in case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. The Court applied this provision retroactively to render petitioner's certiorari petition timely filed.

Puno, Acting C.J. (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concurred. Tinga, J., was out of the country.