Nuguid v. Cariño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, Nuguid brothers and practicing civil engineers, entered into a contract with defendant Venancio Cariño for the supply of labor for carpentry, masonry, tinsmithing, plumbing, electrical installation, and painting for a house construction. Cariño was to receive P4,600.00 payable in installments. The construction was disrupted in November 1952. Procedural History: On December 9, 1952, the Nuguid brothers filed a complaint for specific performance and damages, alleging abandonment by Cariño and claiming expenses for completion, supervision fees, and liquidated damages. Cariño denied abandonment, attributing delay to the plaintiffs' failure to provide materials, and counterclaimed for unpaid wages. The trial court declared the plaintiffs in default for non-appearance, received defendant's evidence, and dismissed the complaint while ordering plaintiffs to pay Cariño P811.05 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief under Rule 38, which was granted, setting aside the decision. However, plaintiffs again failed to appear on the rescheduled hearing date, leading the court to revive its June 17, 1953 decision. Plaintiffs filed another motion for reconsideration, alleging their original lawyer withdrew without notice and they only learned of the revived decision upon receiving the order. This motion was denied for lack of an accompanying affidavit of merit. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to a purely legal question. The Appeal: The plaintiffs-appellants appealed the order denying their motion for reconsideration, arguing that the subsequent filing of an affidavit of merit on the hearing date, without objection and before the court ruled, constituted substantial compliance with Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which requires a motion for relief to be accompanied by an affidavit of merit. They contended that their failure to appear was due to excusable negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the subsequent filing of an affidavit of merit on the date of the hearing of a motion for reconsideration, without objection from the adverse party and before the court could pass upon the motion, constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that such motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit under Rule 38, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and reviving its previous decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court held that the motion for relief was not filed in accordance with the Rules of Court because it was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit at the time of filing. While an affidavit of merit was later filed, it did not sufficiently state the nature of the accident or excusable negligence. The Court also emphasized that the granting of a motion for relief is largely discretionary and found no abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the motion for reconsideration, which sought relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, was not filed in accordance with the law because it was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit at the time of its filing. Section 3 of Rule 38 explicitly requires that a petition for relief must be verified and accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense. While the plaintiffs-appellants argued that the subsequent filing of the affidavit of merit on the hearing date constituted substantial compliance, the Court found that the affidavit, even when filed, failed to specify or state the nature of the accident or excusable negligence supporting their prayer for relief. The Court noted that while the motion mentioned the withdrawal of their attorney without notice, the affidavit did not elaborate on this aspect sufficiently to meet the requirements of the rule. Therefore, the procedural defect was not cured by the subsequent filing. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court reiterated that the granting or denial of a motion for relief under Rule 38 is largely dependent upon the sound discretion of the court. Given the procedural infirmities of the motion, particularly the lack of a proper and timely affidavit of merit that sufficiently detailed the grounds for relief, the lower court was justified in denying the motion. The plaintiffs-appellants' failure to appear at hearings, despite being represented by counsel, further supported the lower court's decision to proceed with the revival of its earlier judgment. The appellate court's role is limited to correcting grave abuse of discretion, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order denying a motion for reconsideration for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The Court held that while the motion for reconsideration was filed, it lacked the mandatory accompanying affidavit of merit at the time of filing. Although an affidavit of merit was later filed, it did not sufficiently state the nature of the accident or excusable negligence relied upon. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the granting of a motion for relief is largely discretionary and that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.