Borromeo v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves Remedios Cuenco Vda. de Borromeo, as administratrix of the estate of the late Teofilo Borromeo, suing Tomas L. Borromeo. The plaintiff sought an accounting and payment of her late husband's share from war damage claims received by the defendant, who acted as attorney-in-fact, along with damages and attorney's fees. The defendant denied the claim, asserting that the share had been fully paid. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Civil Case No. R-5031). Due to a scheduling mix-up involving counsel, the defendant and his counsel failed to appear for the hearing, leading to an ex parte judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's motion for a new trial, based on mistake or excusable neglect, was denied. The defendant then appealed this denial, but the appeal was dismissed by the Court of First Instance for being filed out of the reglementary period. Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals, seeking to set aside the dismissal order and obtain a new trial. The Court of Appeals granted the writ, ordering a new trial. 3. The Petition: This case is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 46 from the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, Remedios Cuenco Vda. de Borromeo, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of certiorari and ordering a new trial. The core of the petitioner's argument appears to be that the appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial was indeed filed out of time, and therefore the Court of Appeals should not have interfered with the dismissal order of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal filed by the respondent from the order denying his motion for new trial was perfected within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari and ordering a new trial.
Ruling
The judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ prayed for by the herein respondent Tomas L. Borromeo is affirmed. The respondent judge is ordered to grant the new trial prayed for and permit the petitioner to present such evidence as may be lawfully warranted and relevant. The injunction issued is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the appeal filed by the respondent Tomas L. Borromeo from the order denying his motion for relief under Rule 38 was taken within the reglementary period and should have been allowed. The Court clarified that a motion for new trial filed under Rule 38, seeking to set aside a judgment due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, is considered final and appealable. The period for taking an appeal from the denial of such a motion is thirty days from the receipt of the copy of the order denying it. The Court found that the respondent had appealed within this period, and therefore, the dismissal of his appeal by the Court of First Instance was erroneous. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ of certiorari. The Court reasoned that the Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the denial of the motion for new trial was a final and appealable order and that the appeal from this denial was timely filed. By ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeals effectively corrected the procedural error of the lower court in dismissing the appeal, thereby allowing the respondent to present his evidence and defenses. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court's decision to grant the new trial.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the denial of a motion for new trial under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a final and appealable order. The Court emphasized that the reglementary period to appeal from the denial of such a motion is thirty (30) days from the receipt of the order denying it. Consequently, the appeal filed by the respondent Tomas L. Borromeo from the order denying his motion for new trial was deemed timely, and the Court of Appeals correctly ordered a new trial.