Prospero v. Robles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eloy Prospero filed an action for damages and a writ of injunction against Alfredo Robles, Ignacio Loyola, Emilio Magcalos, Lucio Bersamin, and Andoy "Doe." A preliminary writ of injunction was issued upon Prospero's posting of a P1,000.00 bond. Procedural History: Appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. Subsequently, a motion for default filed by appellee was denied as the period for answer had not yet expired. Appellants' motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss was also denied. Appellee filed a second motion for default, which was granted, leading the court to receive appellee's evidence and render judgment. The Appeal: Appellants, through new counsel, filed a motion for new trial alleging accident, mistake, or excusable negligence of their former counsel, and that the decision and injunction were against the law. This motion was denied for lack of an affidavit of merit and sufficient grounds. They then filed a petition for relief from judgment, reiterating the alleged negligence of their former lawyer and claiming a different outcome if evidence had been presented. This petition was denied for being filed out of time and for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 38. The present appeal is from this last order.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the motion for new trial and petition for relief were supported by sufficient affidavits of merit. Whether the lower court erred in assuming jurisdiction and issuing a writ of injunction, considering the claim of freedom of speech in labor disputes.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court denying the petition for relief from judgment. The Court held that the petition was filed out of time and lacked the required affidavit of merit. The Court also upheld the lower court's finding that no employer-employee relationship existed, thus the injunction was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The petition for relief was filed out of time. The appellants admitted knowledge of the default order and decision on October 21, 1959. The petition for relief was filed on January 8, 1960, which is seventy-nine (79) days later. This exceeds the sixty (60) days provided for in Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the petition was correctly denied on the ground of being filed beyond the reglementary period. On Issue 2: Neither the motion for new trial nor the petition for relief was supported by a sufficient affidavit of merit. The appellants merely alleged gross negligence, mistake, or abandonment by their former attorney without stating specific facts that constitute such grounds. Furthermore, they did not present facts that would likely convince the court that they had a meritorious case. The requirement is not just to allege a good defense but to present facts that demonstrate it. The mere conclusion that they have strong evidence is insufficient. On Issue 3: The lower court did not err in assuming jurisdiction or issuing the writ of injunction. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court made an express finding, which could not be reviewed on appeal, that at the time of the picketing, there was no employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and the appellants. Consequently, the action was treated as an ordinary one for damages and a restraining order, not a labor dispute where freedom of speech might be invoked to prevent an injunction.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary period, which is sixty (60) days from the time the petitioner acquires knowledge of the judgment, order, or proceeding, and must be accompanied by a sufficient affidavit of merit that alleges facts constituting a meritorious defense and showing excusable negligence or mistake. Mere allegations of negligence by counsel without supporting facts are insufficient.