Maniego v. Manalo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In April 1951, Lourdes Maniego, daughter of petitioner Melchor Maniego, delivered a defamatory speech during her high school graduation. Believing petitioner instigated the slander, fourteen teachers, the respondents, filed separate criminal complaints for serious slander against both petitioner and his daughter. These cases were initially filed in the Justice of the Peace Court and subsequently forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The fiscal later moved to dismiss the cases against the petitioner, and the court also dismissed them against Lourdes Maniego, considering the offense singular. Procedural History: Following the dismissal of the criminal complaints, petitioner Melchor Maniego initiated a civil action for damages against the respondents in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The respondents counterclaimed for damages. On August 9, 1955, the court dismissed petitioner's complaint and ordered him to pay each respondent P200 for moral and pecuniary damages. Petitioner received notice of this judgment on August 22, 1955. A motion for reconsideration and new trial was filed on September 22, 1955, one day beyond the reglementary period, due to an error by counsel's clerk in noting the receipt date. This motion was denied on October 5, 1955. A subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied on November 7, 1955. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 1955, which was also deemed filed out of time by an order on November 28, 1955. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari and mandamus to annul the orders of November 7 and November 28, 1955, to restrain the execution of the August 9, 1955 judgment, and to compel the trial court to grant his motion for reconsideration of the October 5, 1955 order. The petition argues that the one-day delay in filing the initial motion for reconsideration was due to excusable neglect by counsel's clerk. However, the Court notes that the motion for relief under Rule 38 did not sufficiently allege a good cause of action or defense, and importantly, more than sixty days had elapsed from the notification of the judgment (August 22 or 23, 1955) to the filing of the motion for relief (October 28, 1955), rendering the relief under Rule 38 unavailable.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-day delay in filing the motion for reconsideration and new trial, caused by a clerk's error in noting the date of receipt of the judgment, constitutes excusable neglect warranting relief. Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus is the proper remedy under the circumstances, considering the timeliness of the filing of the motion for relief.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a good and substantial cause of action or defense, and that more than 60 days had elapsed from the time his counsel was notified of the judgment to the filing of the motion for relief, rendering the remedy under Rule 38 unavailable.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that whether the mistake of counsel's clerk in noting down the date of receipt of the court's notice of judgment, which caused a one-day delay in filing a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial or in perfecting an appeal, is an excusable mistake or neglect, need not be passed upon. This is because the motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion for reconsideration of the judgment and for new trial, which could be deemed for relief under Rule 38, did not show and allege "facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, . . . which he may prove if his petition be granted." Furthermore, the Court noted that from August 22 or 23, 1955, when petitioner's counsel was notified of the judgment, to October 28, 1955, when the motion for relief was filed, more than 60 days had elapsed, thus withdrawing the availability of the relief provided for in Rule 38. The explanation for the delay, while presented, was insufficient without the accompanying meritorious defense and within the prescribed time limits. On Issue 2: The Court implicitly found that certiorari and mandamus were not proper remedies under the circumstances. The petitioner sought to annul orders denying his motions, which were procedural rulings. The core of his grievance was the denial of his motion for reconsideration and new trial, which he attempted to frame as a motion for relief under Rule 38. However, as established in the reasoning for Issue 1, the requirements for such relief were not met, both in terms of demonstrating a meritorious defense and adhering to the time limitations prescribed by Rule 38. Therefore, the procedural vehicle chosen by the petitioner was ultimately unavailing due to the substantive deficiencies in his claim for relief from the judgment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a motion for reconsideration or new trial, if filed out of time due to a mistake of counsel in noting the date of receipt of judgment, must still demonstrate a meritorious defense or cause of action. Furthermore, any subsequent motion for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within the 60-day period from the time the petitioner acquires knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding, and not more than 180 days from the entry of such judgment, order, or proceeding.