Velayo v. Shell Company
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 17, 1948, Alfredo M. Velayo, as assignee of the insolvent Commercial Airlines, Inc., filed an action for injunction and damages against Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Ltd. Subsequently, on October 26, 1951, Alfonso Sycip, Paul Sycip, and Yek Trading Corporation filed a complaint in intervention, followed by Mabasa & Company on November 14, 1951. Procedural History: After trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed both the plaintiff's complaint and the intervenors' complaints, as the intervenors presented no evidence. On March 31, 1954, counsel for the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal solely for the plaintiff, which were approved. The record and evidence were forwarded to the Supreme Court. On August 31, 1954, counsel for appellants filed their brief. Seven months after the judgment had become final against the intervenors, their counsel filed a petition for correction of the record on appeal in the Supreme Court to include them as appellants, citing a typist's mistake and the attorney's vacation. This petition was denied on November 12, 1954, and a motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Appeal: On November 19, 1954, counsel for intervenors filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court with the lower court, reiterating the same grounds. This was denied on November 27, 1954, for being filed outside the reglementary period. A motion for reconsideration was again denied. On December 20, 1954, counsel filed another motion to amend the record on appeal with the lower court, which was denied on December 27, 1954. A subsequent petition for relief from this order was denied on February 9, 1955, as the case was already before the Supreme Court. It is from this last order of denial that the intervenors have taken the present appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the intervenors-appellants can still perfect their appeal after the judgment had become final against them. Whether the intervenors-appellants are entitled to a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Whether the appeal of the intervenors-appellants has become moot.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court denying the intervenors' petition for relief. The Court held that the intervenors' appeal was without merit, had been filed out of time, and had become moot. The dispositive portion stated: "Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants."
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the intervenors-appellants had no right or reason to appeal from the decision in the main case because they failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period. Their attempts to amend the record on appeal were made seven months after the decision had become final against them. The Court reiterated that the grounds relied upon in their appeal were the same grounds previously denied by the Supreme Court in its resolution of November 12, 1954, and its subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the appeal was correctly dismissed. On Issue 2: The intervenors-appellants were found to have no right or reason to file a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court from the order of the lower court issued on December 27, 1954. This was because the order was entered upon a motion filed by them, and they could not reasonably assert that it was entered against them through fraud, accident, mistake, or negligence. The Court clarified that the fraud contemplated in Rule 38 pertains to fraud committed by the adverse party, which could not be attributed to the Court itself. Furthermore, the petition for relief was filed after the judgment had become final against them, and the grounds presented did not meet the requirements for such relief. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court declared the intervenors-appellants' appeal moot. This was because the main case had already been decided by the Supreme Court on its merits on October 31, 1956, reversing the lower court's decision and awarding damages to the plaintiff. This outcome was precisely what the intervenors sought to accomplish by joining the appeal as co-appellants. Consequently, their appeal had lost its purpose and relevance, rendering it moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of intervenors' appeal, holding that their attempts to join the appeal were filed beyond the reglementary period and thus rendered the judgment final against them. The Court emphasized that intervenors who fail to present evidence during trial have no substantial basis to appeal, and their subsequent petitions for correction of the record on appeal and petitions for relief from judgment were correctly denied due to procedural defects and the mootness of the appeal after the main case was decided.