Tantoco v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a complaint filed by General Milk (Phil.), Inc. against Arturo F.W. Tantoco for the recovery of P80,933.00, representing the value of milk products obtained on credit, plus attorney's fees. Tantoco failed to file an answer within the prescribed period, leading to his default and an ex parte judgment in favor of General Milk. The judgment ordered Tantoco to pay the principal amount with interest and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: Following the default judgment rendered on April 18, 1966, Tantoco filed a petition for relief on February 3, 1967, claiming he learned of the judgment on September 19, 1966, and alleging improper service of summons and excusable negligence. The trial court denied this petition, finding that summons was properly served on Tantoco's son, Abelardo, who was deemed to have sufficient intelligence and discretion. Tantoco's subsequent motion for reconsideration and his answer were also denied. He then filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court disapproved his record on appeal and amended record on appeal due to various defects and untimeliness. Tantoco then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. A subsequent petition for leave to file an amended petition was also denied, leading to the present appeal. 3. The Petition: Tantoco seeks review of the Court of Appeals' resolution denying his petition for leave to file an amended petition. He argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's denial of his petition for relief and disapproval of his record on appeal. The core issues revolve around whether summons was properly served, thus conferring jurisdiction on the trial court, and whether his petition for relief and appeal were filed within the reglementary periods. Tantoco contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective service of summons and that his appeal was perfected in a timely manner, despite the procedural missteps highlighted by the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner due to alleged improper service of summons. Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the petitioner's appeal was perfected on time.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the petitioner was properly served with summons, his petition for relief was filed out of time, and his appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. Treble costs were imposed against the petitioner's original counsel.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and service of summons: The Court held that the petitioner was properly served with summons. Even if the summons was received by his son, Abelardo Tantoco, the evidence showed that Abelardo possessed sufficient intelligence and discretion to receive summons for his father. The petitioner admitted that his son helped in the store, signed checks, and handled errands. The Sheriff, who had been serving since 1960, appeared to have exercised sound judgment in serving the summons upon Abelardo, who seemed to be the most responsible person present at the store. Furthermore, the petitioner's voluntary appearance by filing an answer to the complaint without expressly objecting to the court's jurisdiction meant he submitted himself to the court's authority. The Court also noted that the parties had agreed in their sales contracts that the courts of Manila would have jurisdiction over any legal action arising from their transactions, waiving objections to venue. On the timeliness of the petition for relief: The Court found that the petition for relief was filed out of time. Petitioner learned of the default judgment on September 19, 1966, and filed his petition for relief on February 3, 1967, which was 136 days later. This exceeded the 60-day period prescribed by Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court. Additionally, the default judgment was entered on June 2, 1966, and the petition for relief was filed 245 days later, exceeding the six-month period also provided by the rule. The Court rejected the petitioner's claims of sickness and fortuitous event as grounds for excusable negligence, noting the lack of substantiating evidence such as medical certificates or a certificate from the chief of police regarding the alleged fire. The alleged defense of loss due to force majeure was also found unsubstantiated, as the petitioner failed to prove that all goods consigned were lost in the fire and did not present evidence of his actual loss. On the perfection of the appeal: The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period. Petitioner received a copy of the order denying his petition for relief on March 1, 1968. He was required to file his notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal within thirty (30) days from this date, which would be March 31, 1968. He filed his notice of appeal on April 4, 1968, but the appeal bond was filed on April 15, 1968, and received by the trial court on April 30, 1968, both dates being beyond the reglementary period. The trial court's subsequent disapproval of the record on appeal and appeal bond was therefore legal. The Court also noted with displeasure the petitioner's abuse of the trial court's liberality and his lack of candor in misrepresenting dates in his pleadings.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or other proceedings to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered. Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period, including the timely filing of the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, results in the dismissal of the appeal.