Julius Gregory Delgado
“COLMENAR VS. COLMENAR, ET AL.”, G.R. NO. 252467 (21 JUNE 2021);
FIRST CASE LAW APPLYING THE 2019 AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE
Frank Colmenar is the son and compulsory heir of Francisco Jesus Colmenar who died intestate leaving properties in Trece Martires City, Cavite. Frank Colmenar, who was living in the United States, learned that Apollo Colmenar, Jeannie Colmenar Mendoza, and Victoria Jet Colmenar misrepresented that they are the heirs of his father and executed Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement and sold the properties to several corporations, namely: ProFriends, Crisanta Realty and Philippine Estate Corporation (“PEC”) which in turn sold the property it bought to Amaia.
Frank Colmenar filed a Complaint on 11 September 2018 seeking to declare null and void the Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement, Deeds of Sale, Cancellation of Title and Damages. ProFriends filed its Answer with Affirmative Defense in December 2018, PEC and Crisanta Realty on 03 January 2019 and Amaia on 27 February 2020. Upon motion, the trial court heard the affirmative defenses. Judge Jean Desuasido-Gill initially issued an Order dated 12 February 2020 denying the affirmative defenses ruling that the defenses are best threshed out during trial. Motions for reconsideration were then filed and during their pendency, the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure took effect on 01 May 2020.
In an Order dated 22 May 2020, Judge Desuasido-Gill dismissed the complaints as against PEC, Crisanta Realty, Amaia and ProFriends on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action applying Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure. Among the grounds for dismissal of a complaint is if it fails to state a cause of action as provided in par. (a) (4) of the said provision. Thus, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the complaint as provided in par. (c) of the same provision. Frank Colmenar filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising a question of law. Frank Colmenar claims that Judge Desuasido-Gill committed reversible error when she applied the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure when in fact, under Rule 144 thereof, it provides that:
“The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on May 1, 2020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the extend that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.” [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]
In granting the petition of Frank Colmenar, the Supreme Court held that when Judge Desuasido-Gill applied Section 12 (c), Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments, or the motu proprio resolution of affirmative defenses, the prescribed thirty (30)-day period had long expired. ProFriends, PEC, Crisanta and Amaia filed their Answers with Affirmative Defenses months before. The Court held that Judge Desuasido-Gill should have desisted from applying the 2019 Amendments because to do so was no longer feasible. More importantly, the Supreme Court held that the application of the 2019 Amendments caused injustice to Frank Colmenar because he could no longer comment to the affirmative defenses and any action on affirmative defenses may no longer be a subject of a motion for reconsideration as provided under Section 12 (c), Rule 15 of the 2019 Amendments:
“But this is not all. The worst part is when Judge Gill ignored the injustice caused by the application of the 2019 Amendments to the case. For as a consequence, petitioner lost his substantial right to be heard on the common affirmative defense of PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia, and his right to seek a reconsideration of the order of dismissal which were both granted him under the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.”
We will see more rulings of the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure wherein drastic changes were made with the end goal of expediting the resolution of cases and forcing parties to already lay their cards even at the exchange of pleadings. While the 2019 Amendments should be applied to all pending cases to help unclog dockets of our courts, it will also protect litigants if its application is no longer feasible or will cause injustice.