GR L 8333; (December, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8333, December 28, 1957.
GELACIO BODIOGAN, petitioner, vs. HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gelacio Bodiogan filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a truck. The parties later submitted a compromise agreement to the court, which rendered a decision on September 25, 1953, approving the agreement and ordering compliance. The agreement stipulated, among other things, that Bodiogan would return a specific truck to defendant Antonio Barrientos in good working condition within two months. Barrientos later filed motions for execution, alleging Bodiogan failed to return the truck in the required condition. The respondent judge issued orders directing Bodiogan to deposit money for repairs. On July 8, 1954, Bodiogan, through new counsel, filed a verified petition to set aside the compromise agreement and subsequent orders, alleging fraud, undue influence by the judge, lack of notice of hearings, and that the execution order was oppressive. He also filed an ex parte motion for the judge to disqualify himself. The respondent judge denied the petition for relief on August 28, 1954, finding it was filed out of time under Rule 38, Section 3, and later issued an order for execution. Bodiogan’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief from judgment and in issuing the orders for execution.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The Court agreed with the respondent judge that the petition for relief was filed out of time, as it was submitted more than nine months after the September 25, 1953 decision, well beyond the period allowed by Rule 38, Section 3. The Court distinguished the cited case of Samaniada vs. Mata, as that judgment based on a compromise was not yet final because it required further court approval of a commissioner’s report on land segregation. In the present case, the compromise agreement required no further court approval; the judgment was final and only its execution remained. The Court also found no merit in the claim regarding the judge’s disqualification, stating the grounds of “propriety and delicacy” were not legal grounds for disqualification, and the judge’s denial of the petition for relief was, in effect, a decision in favor of his own competency. The petition was denied with costs.