Smith Bell v. Philippine Milling
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A decision was rendered in civil case No. 27201 by the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant-appellant and in favor of plaintiff-appellee for P2,125.00, plus attorney's fees and costs. The decision was rendered after hearing plaintiff's evidence, as the defendant failed to appear. Procedural History: The defendant received a copy of the decision on March 16, 1956. Instead of appealing, it filed a petition for "Relief from Judgment" on April 2, 1956, which was denied for lack of merit on April 16, 1956. The defendant received a copy of this denial on April 21, 1956. Subsequently, on May 29, 1956, the defendant filed another petition for "Relief from Judgment with Preliminary Injunction," which was also denied by the court a quo. The Petition: The defendant appealed the order denying its second petition for relief.
Issue(s)
Whether the second petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the defendant-appellant was entitled to relief from judgment under Rule 38.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, denying the defendant-appellant's petition for relief from judgment. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for relief: The Court held that a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside. This period is non-extendible and is never interrupted. In this case, the defendant received notice of the decision on March 16, 1956. Its second petition for relief was filed on May 29, 1956, which is 74 days after March 16, 1956. Therefore, the petition was filed 14 days too late and could no longer be properly entertained. On the availability of the remedy under Rule 38: The Court further observed that the defendant could have appealed the decision it sought to set aside but failed to do so, allowing it to become final. Even after receiving the denial of its first petition for relief on April 21, 1956, the defendant still had several days within which to perfect an appeal. Since the defendant failed to avail itself of the remedy of appeal before the decision became final, it could no longer resort to the remedy under Rule 38. The Court reiterated the principle that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to its own negligence. The remedy under Rule 38 is an act of grace, and the party seeking it must strictly comply with its conditions.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside. This period is non-extendible and is never interrupted. Failure to appeal a decision after the court has refused to reconsider it, before the decision becomes final, bars the remedy under Rule 38, as relief will not be granted to a party whose loss of the remedy at law was due to its negligence.