Cruz v. Oppen Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originates from an ejectment suit filed by Ernesto Oppen Inc. against Emiliana Cruz concerning Stall No. 78 of the Manila Cartimar Market. The City Court of Manila rendered a default judgment against Cruz, ordering her to vacate the premises, pay P71.00 in back rentals, and daily rentals of P2.70 from March 20, 1963, until vacation. 2. Procedural History: Cruz moved to set aside the default judgment and writ of execution, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of summons on her salesgirl, who failed to deliver the documents. This motion was denied. A subsequent motion for reconsideration and new trial, with an appended affidavit from the salesgirl, was also denied. Cruz then filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The respondent corporation argued that the petition was time-barred and that the salesgirl's negligence was not excusable. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition, finding it was filed 71 days after Cruz learned of the judgment, exceeding the 60-day period allowed by Rule 38, and that the salesgirl's negligence was not excusable. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant, Emiliana Cruz, seeks reversal of the Court of First Instance's dismissal of her petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court. She contends that her petition was timely filed, arguing that the period consumed by her motions in the city court should be deducted from the 60-day limit. She also argues that her salesgirl's negligence was not her own and should be considered excusable. Furthermore, she claims the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing her petition without a hearing on the merits, asserting that issues of fact remained to be resolved.
Issue(s)
Whether the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 38 is interrupted by the filing of motions in the inferior court. Whether the Petition for Relief was timely filed. Whether the Court of First Instance denied Petitioner due process by resolving the case without oral argument.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for relief. The Court held that the petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period prescribed by Rule 38, and that the negligence of the salesgirl was not excusable. Furthermore, the petition failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense or cause of action that would warrant relief.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the 60-day period set forth in Rule 38 is absolutely fixed and never interrupted. Citing Palomares vs. Jimenez and Rafanan vs. Rafanan, the Court emphasized that this equitable remedy is an 'act of grace' and the petitioner must grab what is offered without haggling or dilly-dallying. Because the period is devised to meet a specific contingency, it cannot be subjected to further conditions. The time spent pursuing remedies in the inferior court, which lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from judgment, did not toll the running of the period. On Issue 2: The Petition for Relief was filed 71 days after Petitioner learned of the judgment (May 22 to August 1), making it 11 days late. The Court held that failure to comply with this peremptory period warrants dismissal. Furthermore, the petition lacked merit because the affidavits of Petitioner and her salesgirl failed to show excusable negligence or a meritorious defense. The salesgirl's failure to deliver summons was not considered 'excusable,' and the short-payment of rentals admitted by Petitioner supported the original ejectment ruling. On Issue 3: The Court held that the lack of oral argument did not constitute a denial of due process. Since the respondents' answer admitted the facts and presented solely issues of law, the motion was effectively one for judgment on the pleadings under Section 1, Rule 19. Such motions can be considered ex-parte when no factual questions are involved. Moreover, Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration in the CFI gave her an adequate opportunity to present her arguments, thus curing any alleged lack of initial notice or hearing.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court must be filed within the reglementary period of sixty (60) days from the time the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside. This period is absolutely fixed, inextendible, and cannot be interrupted by any motion or proceeding filed in the inferior court, as such motions do not suspend the running of the period. Furthermore, the petition must be accompanied by affidavits showing a meritorious defense or cause of action, and demonstrating fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.