Rili v. Chunaco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a civil complaint filed by Alfonso Rili and Trinidad Vda. de Miraflores against Ciriaco Chunaco, et al. The case proceeded to a judgment rendered on the pleadings against the defendants. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of an amended complaint and a second amended complaint, the defendant Ciriaco Chunaco filed an answer containing a general denial. The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the answer raised no issues of fact. This motion was granted, and the defendant was notified of the judgment on April 6, 1948. A motion to set aside the judgment was filed on April 20, 1948, and denied on April 24, 1948. A second motion to set aside was filed on May 27, 1948, and denied on June 17, 1948. The notice of appeal and record of appeal, along with the appeal bond, were filed on June 18, 1948, which was determined to be out of time. 3. The Petition: The defendant-appellant sought to appeal the judgment and subsequent orders. The appeal was filed out of time, as the notice of appeal and record were submitted more than thirty days after the initial notification of the judgment and after the denial of two motions to set aside. The appellant also filed a motion for relief under Rule 38, alleging mistake and fraud, but this was denied as the grounds were available at the time of the first motion to set aside and thus deemed waived.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice and record of appeal were filed within the reglementary period. Whether the second motion to set aside the judgment had the effect of staying the period to appeal. Whether the motion for relief under Rule 38 was properly denied.
Ruling
The appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time. The judgment and orders appealed from were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the notice and record of appeal were filed within the reglementary period: The period for appeal commenced on April 6, 1948, when the defendant was notified of the judgment. The first motion to set aside was filed on April 20, 1948, which was within the 30-day period. This motion tolled the period to appeal. The period began to run again on May 24, 1948, when the defendant was notified of the denial of his first motion. The notice and record of appeal were filed on June 18, 1948, which was 25 days after the notification of the denial of the first motion, and 39 days after the initial notice of judgment. Therefore, the appeal was filed out of time. On Whether the second motion to set aside the judgment had the effect of staying the period to appeal: The second motion to set aside the judgment was filed on May 27, 1948. The Court found that this second motion was merely a reiteration of the first motion. As such, it could not have the effect of staying or interrupting the period to appeal again. The rule is that a motion attacking a pleading or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included are deemed waived. A subsequent, repetitive motion does not restart the reglementary period. On Whether the motion for relief under Rule 38 was properly denied: The defendant filed a motion for relief under Rule 38, alleging mistake and fraud. The alleged mistake was one of law, and the fraud was alleged to consist of facts affecting the merits of the case. However, these grounds were existing and available at the time the first motion to set aside was filed. According to Rule 26, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, a motion attacking a pleading or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. Since the grounds for relief under Rule 38 were available and not raised in the first motion, the motion for relief was correctly denied.
Main Doctrine
The period for filing an appeal is a matter of procedural law that must be strictly observed. A motion to set aside a judgment, if filed within the reglementary period, tolls the period to appeal. However, a second motion to set aside, which is merely a reiteration of the first, does not have the effect of staying the period to appeal again. Furthermore, all objections to a pleading or proceeding must be raised in a single motion, otherwise, they are deemed waived.