Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arciaga
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Taurino Singson, a paying passenger of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., sustained serious injuries when the bus he was on crashed into an acacia tree. Singson filed a complaint for contractual tort, to which the bus company raised the defense of fortuitous event. The case experienced numerous postponements, and was eventually dismissed by the lower court due to the plaintiff's non-appearance at a scheduled trial. 2. Procedural History: Following the dismissal of his case, Singson's counsel filed a Petition for Relief 61 days after receiving notice of the dismissal, which was one day beyond the prescribed 60-day period. The lower court granted this petition, allowing Singson his day in court, and subsequently denied Philippine Rabbit's motion for reconsideration. Philippine Rabbit then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for insufficient allegations. This dismissal was also denied reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding the 60-day period for a Petition for Relief as mandatory and non-extendible, in applying the rule of equity, and in holding that certiorari did not lie. The petitioner contended that Singson's Petition for Relief was filed late, and that equity cannot override express legal provisions, particularly when the period for such relief has lapsed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the 60-day period provided in Section 38 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and non-extendible. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule of equity in the case at bar. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that certiorari does not lie in the instant case.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The resolution of the Court of Appeals and the questioned Order of the lower court are reversed and set aside, and Civil Case No. 2539 is declared terminated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mandatory nature of the 60-day period for a Petition for Relief: Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court clearly states that a petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered. The undisputed fact is that the Petition for Relief was filed 61 days from receipt of the notice of dismissal, making it one day late. The records also indicate that the counsel for the private respondent learned of the dismissal on the same day of the hearing, April 29, 1967, meaning the Petition for Relief was at least eight (8) days late. The Court reiterated the principle that the period for filing a petition for relief is "absolutely fixed, inextendible, never interrupted and cannot be subject to any condition or contingency." Failure to avail of this last chance within the grace period is fatal, as established in cases like Turqueza v. Hernando. On the application of the rule of equity: The Court held that private respondent cannot invoke equity as a ground for the reopening of the case when there is an express provision of law under which the remedy can be invoked. The principle "equity follows the law" dictates that where a particular remedy is given by law and is circumscribed by particular rules, a court of equity should not extend it beyond what the law allows. In this case, the law provides a specific period for filing a petition for relief, and the private respondent failed to comply with it. Therefore, equity cannot be used to circumvent the clear mandate of the Rules of Court, as equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. On the propriety of certiorari: The issue of whether certiorari is proper in the instant case was laid to rest by the Supreme Court in Turqueza v. Hernando. In that case, a petition for certiorari was granted, setting aside an order to reopen a case after the reglementary period for filing a petition for relief had lapsed. This implies that when a lower court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, certiorari is a proper remedy, even if a petition for relief was filed out of time. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of insufficient allegations, as the failure to comply with the mandatory period for a petition for relief constitutes a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court in granting it.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court must be filed within the reglementary period, which is mandatory and non-extendible. Failure to avail of this last chance within the grace period is fatal, and equity cannot be invoked to reopen a case that has become final and executory due to such failure.