G.R. No. 150739; August 18, 2005
By: Pearlie Jane Q. Binahon | July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Respondent Costales has been occupying as owner of a parcel of land in Sta. Monica, Magsingal, Ilocos Sur. This property was originally owned by Lorenzo who died in 1960. Costales declared the property in her name for taxation purposes and claimed that she is Lorenzo's granddaughter and as such, she inherited the subject lot form him. Costales filed a complaint against petitioners Urian (Lorenzo's grandneice) and Sps. Que with the RTC for Annulment of Quitclaim, Ownership, Possession and Damages.
Under the Deed of Quitclaim, Costales renounced all her rights, interests, participation, title and possession over the subject lot to Sps. Que while in the Acknowledgment, Arrieta confirmed receiving P30,000 from Urian. However, she alleged that she did not sign the documents.
When Costales filed her Complaint, Sps. Que had taken possession of the lot. They also declared the land in their name for tax purposes. However, after receiving the summons, Atty. Ranot (petitioners' counsel) failed to file an answer.
RTC declared petitioners in default and granted Costales' motion to present evidence ex parte and ruled in favor of Costales as the absolute owner of the subject land.
On Sept 15, 2000 – Urian received a copy of the RTC's decision. On Oct 10, 2000 – a new counsel, Atty. Bateria, sought reconsideration or new trial which was denied. On Dec 18, 2000 - Petitioners represented by Atty. Cachapero, filed with the RTC a petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 of the ROC. They claimed that their failure to file an Answer and to seek reconsideration or new trial on time was due to the excusable negligence of their previous counsels. They also invoked "mistake and fraud" as they were allegedly under the impression that Atty. Ranot had prepared and filed "the necessary pleading or that the necessary pleading to vacate the judgment and secure new trial was prepared and filed. However, this was denied.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Held that petitioners filed their petition for relief from judgment beyond the 60-day period under Section 3, Rule 38. CA also noted that the Rules allow a petition for relief from judgment only when there is no other available remedy and not when litigants, like petitioners, lose a remedy by negligence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in ruling that petitioners are not entitled to relief from judgment.
HELD:
No. Under Section 1, Rule 38, the court may grant relief from judgment only "when a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence x x x."
In their petition for relief from judgment in the trial court, petitioners contended that judgment was entered against them through "mistake or fraud" because they were allegedly under the impression that Atty. Ranot had prepared and filed "the necessary pleading." This is not the fraud or mistake contemplated under Section 1.
As used in that provision, "mistake" refers to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case. "Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court. Clearly, petitioners' mistaken assumption that Atty. Ranot had attended to his professional duties is neither mistake nor fraud. Further, the "negligence", as contemplated in the Rules must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere deception of replacing counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.
As an equitable remedy, a petition for relief from judgment is available only as a last recourse, when the petitioner has no other remedy. This is not true here because petitioners had at their disposal other remedies which they in fact availed of, although belatedly or defectively, such as when they filed their motion for reconsideration or new trial in the trial court. As the CA held: "Petition for Relief from Judgment" is not a general utility tool in the procedural workshop.
The relief granted under Rule 38 of the ROC is of equitable character and is allowed only when there is no other available or adequate remedy. It is not regarded with favor. The judgment rendered will not be disturbed where the complainant has or by exercising proper diligence would have had an adequate remedy at law. If the complainant lost a remedy at law from an adverse judgment by his x x x negligence, such inequitable conduct precludes him from relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Petition is denied.
