G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949
PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. vs. CATALINO TINIO, F.C. STELTON, and POTENCIANO PECSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila

FACTS

Respondent Catalino Tinio filed a complaint against petitioner Pacific Importing & Exporting Co. and its manager F.C. Stelton to recover sales commissions. On May 12, 1947, Tinio and the Pacific Company filed a joint statement praying for the definite dismissal of the case, stating that the Pacific Company had paid all commissions due and that Stelton was liable for commissions after October 1, 1946. The court issued an order of definite dismissal on May 30, 1947, which became final on June 29, 1947, no appeal having been taken. On February 3, 1948, Tinio filed a petition to set aside the dismissal, alleging he was fraudulently induced to agree to it based on false promises by the Pacific Company. The respondent judge granted the petition and revived the case on February 10, 1948.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction to set aside the order of definite dismissal after the six-month period for seeking relief under Rule 38, Section 3 of the Rules of Court had expired.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the respondent judge’s order. The order of dismissal became final on June 29, 1947. Tinio’s motion to set it aside was filed on February 3, 1948, more than seven months later, which was beyond the six-month reglementary period prescribed by Rule 38, Section 3 for seeking relief on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Consequently, the court lost jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The Court noted that while Tinio appeared to have been defrauded, his remedy was to file a separate action to annul the dismissal order on the ground of extrinsic fraud and to pursue his claim for commissions therein. The Pacific Company could also reassert its counterclaim in such action. The writ was granted without costs.

AI Generated by Armztrong.