Francisco v. Caluag
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Emiliano Adriano initiated a lawsuit in the Rizal court of first instance against spouses Asuncion Francisco and Adriano Villanueva, and Eusebio Francisco. Adriano sought to recover P1,587.50 as his share of a real property sale commission, along with P1,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages, P500.00 for attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: The defendant spouses, Francisco and Villanueva, denied the allegations and presented other defenses. Their failure to appear at a scheduled hearing on June 20, 1958, led the respondent court to issue an order allowing the plaintiff's evidence to be received ex parte by the Clerk of Court. Despite multiple motions for reconsideration filed by the spouses, citing reasons such as their lawyer's lost calendar and a clerk's failure to notify them, the court rendered a decision based on the ex parte evidence on June 24, 1958, and subsequently denied their motions, including one filed on December 26, 1958, which was considered a third motion for reconsideration. The court reasoned that the subsequent motions did not suspend the period for appeal, and the decision had become executory. 3. The Petition: The spouses Asuncion Francisco and Adriano Villanueva filed this petition for certiorari on May 6, 1959, seeking to set aside the judgment and stay execution. They argued for their right to be heard and to have their day in court. The respondents contended that the petition was filed nearly a year after the decision was notified and that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, especially when the decision has become final.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in rendering a decision ex parte and denying the petitioners' subsequent motions for reconsideration. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail a judgment that has become final and executory.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the respondent judge acted within his discretion and that the subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners did not suspend the period within which to appeal. Certiorari was deemed an improper remedy as the decision had become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners and their counsel were duly notified of the hearing but failed to appear. The subsequent motions for reconsideration, which merely reiterated the excuse of a lost pocket calendar and a clerk's failure to notify the spouses, were considered pro forma. Such motions do not suspend the period for appeal. Therefore, the decision became final and executory, and the judge acted within his authority in proceeding with the execution. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court reiterated the established doctrine that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioners had the remedy of appeal from the decision of June 24, 1958, but failed to avail themselves of it within the reglementary period. The subsequent motions for reconsideration, being pro forma, did not toll this period. The petition was filed almost a year after the decision was rendered, further underscoring that it was being used to circumvent the rules on appeal and finality of judgments.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the filing of multiple motions for reconsideration, particularly those that are pro forma or merely reiterate previous arguments without presenting new substantial issues, does not suspend the period within which to appeal. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the remedy is no longer to appeal but to seek relief through other extraordinary legal means, if applicable, or to comply with the judgment.