G.R. No. L-17722; October 9, 1961
MAURICIO GORDULAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAREO GORDULAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case originated from a suit for recovery of land filed by Mauricio Gordulan against Cesareo Gordulan in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The defendant, Cesareo, was duly summoned but failed to file his answer within the reglementary period. Consequently, upon the plaintiff’s motion, the court declared the defendant in default. After the plaintiff presented his evidence ex parte, the trial court rendered a final judgment by default against the defendant.
Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. He alleged that he possessed a good and substantial defense, claiming the land was co-owned in equal shares, and attributed the failure to answer to the excusable negligence of his counsel. The Court of First Instance denied his petition. The defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved purely legal questions.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s petition for relief from the final judgment by default.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition for relief. The Court emphasized that Rule 38 is a special remedy with strict requirements that are conditions sine qua non for its grant. Section 2 and 3 of Rule 38 require not only a sworn statement of a meritorious defense but also a clear showing that the failure to file an answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
While the defendant’s petition contained a sworn allegation of a co-ownership defense, it utterly failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s negligence was excusable. The trial judge correctly noted the absence of an affidavit from the counsel explaining his negligence. Furthermore, the defendant had a personal duty to inquire about the status of his case, especially since he resided less than an hour from the courthouse and was aware of related events like an attachment of his harvest. His failure to exercise such diligence for months, even after the order of default and the ex parte hearing, negated any claim of excusable neglect.
The Court also reiterated the settled doctrine that a client is bound by the acts, including mistakes and negligence, of his counsel in procedural matters. The proper recourse for the client aggrieved by counsel’s negligence is a separate action for damages against the lawyer, not relief from a final judgment. Therefore, the appealed order was affirmed.