Facts:
Lita Montalban obtained a loan from Elmer Gomez in the amount of P40,000 with a voluntary proposal on her part to pay 15% interest per month. Montalban failed to comply with her obligation so Gomez filed a complaint in the RTC for sum of money. Summons was served but despite her receipt, she still failed to file an Answer. She was declared in default and upon motion, Gomez was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered a decision ordering Montalban to pay Gomez.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging that there was no proper service of summons since there was no personal service. She alleged that one Mrs. Alicia Dela Torre was not authorized to receive summons and that her failure to file an Answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence (FAME). The Petition was set for hearing but counsel for respondent failed to appear before the court hence the dismissal of the Petition.
Montalban filed for a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition stating that counsel’s failure to appeal was unintentional to which the RTC granted. To this instance, Gomez filed a Petition for Reconsideration.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging that there was no proper service of summons since there was no personal service. She alleged that one Mrs. Alicia Dela Torre was not authorized to receive summons and that her failure to file an Answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence (FAME). The Petition was set for hearing but counsel for respondent failed to appear before the court hence the dismissal of the Petition.
Montalban filed for a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition stating that counsel’s failure to appeal was unintentional to which the RTC granted. To this instance, Gomez filed a Petition for Reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the granting of Petition for Relief from Judgment by the RTC is proper.
Held:
NO. The RTC committed an error in doing so. A Petition for Relief under Rule 38 is only available against a final and executory judgment and the grounds include fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
Discussion on Grounds:
"Mistake" refers to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case. The word "mistake," which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Such errors may be corrected by means of an appeal. This does not exist in the case at bar, because respondent has in no wise been prevented from interposing an appeal.
"Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court,or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy. This is not present in the case at hand as respondent was not prevented from securing a fair trial and was given the opportunity to present her case.
Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. Under Section 1 Rule 38, the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.
In Tuason v CA, the court explained the nature of a Petition for Relief from Judgment:
“A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition. Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which had been lost thru inexcusable negligence.”
In the case, Montalban contended that judgment was entered against her through mistake or fraud because she was not duly served summons. However, under the discussion of the following grounds, the SC sees no merit in her petition.
*Petition for Relief from Judgment is set aside.
Whether or not the granting of Petition for Relief from Judgment by the RTC is proper.
Held:
NO. The RTC committed an error in doing so. A Petition for Relief under Rule 38 is only available against a final and executory judgment and the grounds include fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
Discussion on Grounds:
"Mistake" refers to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case. The word "mistake," which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Such errors may be corrected by means of an appeal. This does not exist in the case at bar, because respondent has in no wise been prevented from interposing an appeal.
"Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court,or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy. This is not present in the case at hand as respondent was not prevented from securing a fair trial and was given the opportunity to present her case.
Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. Under Section 1 Rule 38, the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.
In Tuason v CA, the court explained the nature of a Petition for Relief from Judgment:
“A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition. Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which had been lost thru inexcusable negligence.”
In the case, Montalban contended that judgment was entered against her through mistake or fraud because she was not duly served summons. However, under the discussion of the following grounds, the SC sees no merit in her petition.
*Petition for Relief from Judgment is set aside.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento