Mendoza v. Montesa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves Civil Case No. 4407, where Efren V. Mendoza was the plaintiff and Angel Gonzales was the defendant. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment against the defendant on August 11, 1949, after a hearing of which the defendant was not notified. Although notice of the judgment was sent by registered mail on August 16, 1949, the defendant claims he did not receive it due to a change of residence. On January 25, 1950, with the judgment in the execution phase, the defendant filed a petition for relief under Rule 38. The trial court granted this petition, setting aside the judgment and ordering a new hearing, finding that the defendant had been deprived of his day in court. The Petition: Efren V. Mendoza, the plaintiff, filed this petition for certiorari to annul the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Mendoza argues that the order setting aside the judgment was rendered with grave abuse of discretion because the petition for relief was filed more than two months after the service of notice of the decision should have been deemed complete under Rule 27, Section 8. Mendoza seeks to circumvent the rule that orders setting aside judgments under Rule 38 are not appealable until a final judgment on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 4407. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to annul an order granting a petition for relief under Rule 38, when such orders are not immediately appealable.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The order of the respondent judge setting aside the judgment is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court reiterated that petitions to set aside judgments under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Section 8 of Rule 38 explicitly provides that the order of the court setting aside such judgment is not appealable until a final judgment is rendered upon the merits in the principal case. Therefore, the respondent judge's order, being an exercise of discretion within the bounds of Rule 38, was not a grave abuse of discretion. On Issue 2: The present petition for certiorari seeks to annul an order that is explicitly made non-appealable by Section 8 of Rule 38 until after the principal case is decided on the merits. Filing a certiorari petition prematurely circumvents this specific procedural rule designed to prevent piecemeal review of interlocutory orders. The proper recourse for the petitioner, if aggrieved by the final judgment on the merits, would be to appeal the case in due course, where the propriety of setting aside the original judgment could then be reviewed.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari cannot be used to circumvent the rule that orders setting aside judgments under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court are not immediately appealable. Such orders are interlocutory and are subject to the sound discretion of the trial court, with review only permissible after a final judgment on the merits has been rendered in the principal case. The purpose of this rule is to prevent piecemeal litigation and to allow the trial court to proceed with the case to its conclusion.