Arcilla v. Arcilla
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an action for Annulment of Sale with Damages filed by the private respondents against Laureano Arcilla and others. The sale in question, a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Segunda Vda. de Arcilla in favor of Laureano Arcilla, was sought to be declared null and void. The original plaintiff, Segunda O. Vda. de Arcilla, passed away before the pre-trial and was substituted by her other children. The case also involved Nemesio Jubay, the Notary Public who allegedly notarized the deed. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Civil Case No. 395-T. After pre-trial conferences, the defendants, including petitioner Laureano Arcilla, were declared in default on October 2, 1975, for failing to appear at the rescheduled pre-trial. A decision was rendered on October 27, 1976, in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the Deed of Sale null and void and the plaintiffs as co-owners of the land. A copy of this decision was received by the defendants' counsel on November 8, 1976. The petitioner, through new counsel, filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default and Set Aside Decision, which was denied. Subsequently, a Petition for Relief from Judgment was filed on April 16, 1977, which was also denied by the respondent Judge on May 18, 1977, for being filed out of time. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, assailing the respondent Judge's Order dated May 18, 1977, which denied his Petition for Relief from Judgment. The petitioner argues that the denial was a grave abuse of discretion. The core of his argument is that the order of default was improperly issued due to lack of notice of the pre-trial, rendering subsequent proceedings void. He also contends that he learned of the decision only on March 24, 1977. The petition seeks to set aside the denial of the Petition for Relief and the subsequent judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or without jurisdiction in denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment for having been filed out of time. Whether the order of default was illegally and improperly issued.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Order of the lower court dated May 18, 1977, denying the petitioner's Petition for Relief from Judgment. The petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment. The petition was filed on April 16, 1977, while the decision sought to be set aside was received by the defendants' counsel on November 8, 1976. According to Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, a petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment and not more than six (6) months after its entry. In this case, the petition was filed approximately five months after the counsel's receipt of the judgment, clearly exceeding the 60-day period. The Court reiterated that notice to counsel is notice to the client, and the reglementary period is absolutely fixed, inextendible, and cannot be subjected to any condition or contingency. Failure to file within this period is fatal, and the remedy under Rule 38, being an act of grace, must be strictly availed of. On Issue 2: While the petitioner argued that the order of default was illegally issued due to lack of notice of the pre-trial, the Court found that the petitioner was present during the pre-trial conference on July 29, 1975, when the court reset the pre-trial to October 2, 1975. The petitioner and his counsel failed to appear on the rescheduled date, despite being notified, leading to the declaration of default. Furthermore, the Court examined the merits of the petition for relief and found that the allegations of mistake or excusable neglect were not sufficiently proven. The affidavit of merit was deemed insufficient as it merely stated a general defense without providing concrete evidence, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the deed of sale involving an illiterate party and a language barrier, which would have required more specific proof to overcome the presumption of validity.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court must be filed within the reglementary period of sixty (60) days from the petitioner's knowledge of the judgment or order and not more than six (6) months from its entry. Notice to counsel is considered notice to the client, and failure to file within these periods, regardless of the merits of the case, is fatal and renders the petition dismissible. The remedy under Rule 38 is an act of grace that must be strictly availed of within the prescribed time.