Rios v. Ros
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of a piece of land. Andres Rios initiated legal proceedings to recover this land, which had previously been the subject of decisions in two other cases, G.R. Nos. 117 and 6222, decided by the Court of First Instance of Albay on November 18, 1944. 2. Procedural History: Following the liberation of the Philippines, Rios filed a new complaint in April 1945 for the recovery of the land. This new case was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata after the defendants presented the November 18, 1944 decision as evidence. Rios then sought relief from the Court of First Instance of Albay, arguing excusable neglect and seeking to set aside the November 18, 1944 judgment, alleging it was a nullity due to lack of evidence in case G.R. No. 117. The respondent judge denied both the motion for relief and the motion to set aside the judgment. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the orders of the respondent judge denying Rios's motion for relief and his motion to set aside the November 18, 1944 judgment. The petitioner contends that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, Rios argues that the November 18, 1944 judgment is void ab initio as no evidence was presented in case G.R. No. 117, and that his attorney only became aware of the judgment's rendition on September 12, 1946. The petition also challenges the validity of the reconstituted records and the notice of hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether certiorari lies against the order denying the motion for relief. Whether certiorari lies against the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment. Whether the judgment dated November 18, 1944, is a nullity ab initio.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that certiorari does not lie for the denial of a motion for relief when the order is final and appealable, and there is no showing of excusable neglect or that appeal was not pursued due to fault. Furthermore, the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment, even if erroneous, is a matter of jurisdiction and correctible by appeal, not certiorari. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion as the respondent judge acted in conformity with law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for relief: The Court held that certiorari does not lie against an order denying a motion for relief if such order is final and appealable. Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides for appeal as the remedy. The petitioner failed to show that his failure to avail himself of the remedy of appeal was not due to his fault or negligence. Moreover, the Court found that the petitioner's counsel was aware of the judgment in question as early as May 5, 1945, when it was presented as evidence in another case, making the motion for relief filed on October 26, 1946, significantly delayed. The Court affirmed that the order denying the motion for relief was in conformity with the law. On the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment: The Court ruled that the respondent judge had the power or jurisdiction to grant or deny the motion to set aside the judgment. Therefore, in denying the motion, the judge did not exceed his jurisdiction nor act with grave abuse of discretion. If the judge erred in not declaring the judgment void ab initio, appeal was the proper remedy to have the error corrected by the appellate court. This Court cannot correct such an error in a certiorari proceeding. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. On the alleged nullity of the judgment dated November 18, 1944: The Court found the petitioner's contention that the judgment was null and void ab initio to be untenable. The records indicated that the parties agreed to have the two cases heard jointly and decided upon the evidence adduced and stipulations of facts. While the petitioner's counsel did not appear on the scheduled continuation of the hearing on October 12, 1944, the Court noted that the parties had agreed to submit the cases for decision upon the evidence and stipulation of facts already presented. The Court also addressed a discrepancy in the hearing date, clarifying that it was due to a clerical error in copying the notice and that the original record indicated October 12, 1944, as the correct date. The evidence presented by Saturnino Ros supported the judgment rendered. The Court concluded that the respondent judge acted in conformity with the law in denying the motion to set aside the judgment.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari does not lie to correct an order denying a motion for relief if the order is final and appealable, and there is no showing that the failure to appeal was not due to the petitioner's fault or negligence. Furthermore, a motion to set aside a judgment falls within the court's jurisdiction, and any error in denying it is correctible by appeal, not certiorari.