Alqueza v. Cavada
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a complaint for forcible entry filed by Venancio L. Dagala against Fructuoso Alqueza and nineteen other individuals. The Justice of the Peace Court of Pinamungahan, Cebu, presided over by respondent Blas G. Cavada Jr., rendered a judgment against these twenty defendants. 2. Procedural History: Following the judgment against them, the defendants (now petitioners) initially filed a motion to set aside the judgment, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, which they claimed deprived them of their day in court. They later withdrew this motion and sought an extension to appeal. After the appeal was perfected and the record forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the defendants withdrew their appeal. Subsequently, they filed a petition to set aside the Justice of the Peace Court's judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. This petition was denied by the Court of First Instance. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are appealing the order of the Court of First Instance denying their petition to set aside the Justice of the Peace Court's judgment. They argue that the lower court should have granted their petition under Rule 38, asserting that the Justice of the Peace Court had not acquired jurisdiction over some of them due to improper summons. The appeal is based on the theory that the denial was erroneous, despite the fact that an appeal was previously filed and then withdrawn.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in denying the petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Whether the Justice of the Peace Court acquired jurisdiction over all the petitioners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance denying the petition for relief.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the petition for relief under Rule 38: The Supreme Court held that the remedy provided in Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is not available when the judgment sought to be set aside is appealable and an appeal has actually been interposed, even if it was subsequently withdrawn. The Court emphasized that the petitioners had already pursued a legal remedy by filing an appeal, and abandoning it to pursue an equitable remedy under Rule 38 would be a "vicious practice" leading to endless litigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition for relief was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit stating the facts constituting the petitioners' good and substantial cause of action or defense, as required by Section 3 of Rule 38. The affidavit attached merely stated the alleged grounds for relief but was silent on the merits of their case. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court found that the record was insufficient to determine the truth of the allegation that not all petitioners were summoned in the Justice of the Peace Court. However, it deemed this factual issue unnecessary to resolve because the order appealed from was based on a procedural ground, namely, the inapplicability of Rule 38, which was sufficient to affirm the denial of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is not available when the judgment sought to be set aside is appealable and an appeal has already been interposed, even if subsequently withdrawn. Furthermore, such petition must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit stating the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense.