ARTICLE 3 SECTION 1 CASE 3 OF 22

TUPAS vs. CA

DOCTRINE:
“Aequetas nunquam contravenit legis” = equity never contravenes the law

FACTS:
1. Apr 3, 1989: petitioners received copy of RTC decision
2. Apr 17: motion for reconsideration filed
3. May 3: order of denied motion (received May 9)
4. May 10: end of reglementary period
5. May 23: actual filing of petition for review (l4-days late)
a. Counsel thereafter asked that petition be treated as a petition for certiorari
which can be filed within a reasonable time
i. Denied because “remedy cannot be employed as a substitute for a
lost appeal”
b. LACSAMANA v CA: “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: W/N petitioners denied due process due to counsel’s late filing. NO

RULING:
1. 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
RULE OF COURT
a. Policy of courts is to give effect to both procedural and substantive law, as
complementing each other.
b. Petitioners unable to show counsel was exceptionally inept or motivated by
bad faith or excusably misled by the facts
i. Cannot be excusable neglect or honest error given impressive
credential of lawyer
A. Graduate of one of the top law schools in the country
B. Bar examiner in Remedial Law
C. Law prof in Remedial Law and other subjects
D. Former National Officer of the IBP
E. Seasoned practitioner for more than 30 yrs
ii. No reason why he should not apply the rule that “clients should be
bound by the acts of their counsel, including his mistakes”

2. Re: EQUITY
a. Described as justice outside legality, available only in the absence of law and
not as its replacement
b. All abstract arguments based only on equity should yield to positive rules