Formoso v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Malacas filed a complaint for damages against petitioners (Alfredo Formoso, et al.) with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. During the trial, the defendants and their counsel failed to appear, leading the plaintiffs to adduce their evidence and obtain a judgment in their favor. Procedural History: Petitioners, averring lack of due notice of the hearing and of the decision, filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The respondent Judge denied this petition, stating the reasons were not "satisfactory." Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal and moved for the approval of their amended record on appeal and appeal bond. The lower court refused to approve the record and denied a motion for reconsideration, on the ground that appeal was not the proper remedy. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul the orders of the respondent Judge denying their motion for approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the refusal by a court to grant relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is an appealable order. Whether appeal is the proper remedy when a petition for relief under Rule 38 is denied. Whether a petition for certiorari is the exclusive remedy when a petition for relief under Rule 38 is denied.
Ruling
The Court granted the writs applied for, set aside the orders under review, and ordered the respondent Judge to give due course to the petitioners' appeal. Costs were against the respondents Malacas spouses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the denial of a petition for relief under Rule 38: The trial court erred in ruling that appeal was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the refusal by a court to grant relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, in an appropriate case, is not merely an interlocutory order, but a final one that can be appealed from. This principle was established in prior rulings such as Paner vs. Yatco and Philippine Manufacturing Co. vs. Imperial. The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of the petition for relief in form or substance is a matter extraneous to the determination of the appealability of the order of denial, as held in Tambunting vs. San Jose. On the propriety of appeal versus certiorari as remedies: The respondent's contention that the denial of relief under Rule 38 is subject only to a petition for certiorari is not well-taken. While the writ of certiorari may be availed of in proper cases, particularly where there is grave or patent abuse of discretion, appeal may still prosper if the aggrieved party elects to pursue that course of action. The Court clarified that even assuming that a petition for certiorari was available, there was nothing that compelled the petitioners to resort to that remedy instead of appeal. The choice of remedy lies with the aggrieved party. On the specific orders of the lower court: The orders of the respondent Judge dated February 15, 1958, denying the petitioner's motion for approval of the record on appeal and appeal bond, and June 17, 1958, denying the motion for reconsideration, were set aside. The Court found that the lower court committed an error in refusing to give due course to the petitioners' appeal based on the erroneous premise that appeal was not the appropriate remedy.
Main Doctrine
The refusal by a court to grant relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, in an appropriate case, is not merely an interlocutory order, but a final one that can be appealed from. Whether or not the petition for relief was sufficient in form or substance is a matter extraneous to the determination of the appealability of the order of denial. While a petition for certiorari may be availed of in proper cases where there is grave or patent abuse of discretion, appeal may still prosper if the aggrieved party elects to pursue that course of action.