Suzara v. Caluag
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Aurora de Castro initiated a lawsuit against Ildefonso Suzara in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, seeking to recover P2,000.00 and P1,152.00 based on two causes of action. The core of Suzara's defense, which he later attempted to raise, was that the amounts claimed were usurious and violated the Usury Law. 2. Procedural History: Suzara failed to file his answer within the stipulated period, leading to his default and a subsequent judgment against him on October 13, 1958. Before learning of the default order and judgment, Suzara filed an answer on November 17, 1958. Upon discovering the judgment, he filed a motion for reconsideration on November 19, 1958, which was denied by the court. The court then issued a writ of execution. Suzara subsequently filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond, but the lower court denied his appeal, deeming him to have no standing due to default and finding his petition for relief untimely. 3. The Petition: Suzara filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court treated as a petition for mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent judge to give due course to his appeal. He argued that his motion for reconsideration, though not accompanied by affidavits of merit, substantially complied with the rules and that the denial of his appeal constituted an abuse of discretion, thereby depriving him of his right to be heard on his defense of usury.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner can be considered a petition for relief under Section 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Whether the motion for reconsideration, even if not a petition for relief, substantially complied with the requirements for a motion for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. Whether the denial of the petitioner's right to appeal constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The respondent court is ordered to give course to the appeal of petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the motion for reconsideration can be considered a petition for relief: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration filed before a judgment becomes final and executory cannot be considered a petition for relief under Section 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Relief under Rule 38 is available only after a decision or judgment from which relief is sought is final and executory. The Court cited Quirino v. Philippine National Bank, et al. and Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace Court of Sariaya to support the principle that relief under Rule 38 is not in order when the judgment has not yet become final and executory. In this case, the motion was filed before the reglementary period for appeal expired and before the decision became final and executory, thus it could not be treated as a petition for relief. On whether the motion for reconsideration substantially complied with requirements for a motion for new trial: The Court stated that the motion filed by the petitioner could only be considered as a motion for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, as it sought to set aside the order and judgment of default based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. However, Rule 37 requires that such a motion be accompanied by affidavits of merit, which were absent in the petitioner's motion. This deficiency was likely the reason the court a quo denied the motion, although it did not explicitly state so. On whether the denial of the petitioner's right to appeal constitutes grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the petitioner had a right to appeal, which the trial court could not deny unless the appeal was clearly frivolous. The petitioner's motion, though not a perfect petition for relief or motion for new trial, was verified and set forth his defense, including the allegation that the amounts claimed were usurious and violated the Usury Law. By denying the appeal without valid reason, the court a quo committed an abuse of discretion that needed correction. Therefore, the petition was deemed justified.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed before the judgment becomes final and executory, even if verified and setting forth a defense, cannot be considered a petition for relief under Rule 38, nor can it be treated as a motion for new trial under Rule 37 if it lacks the required affidavits of merit. However, denying a verified motion that sets forth a defense and potentially has merit, thereby preventing an appeal, may constitute an abuse of discretion.