GR L 4883; (March, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4883 March 25, 1953
J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by its managing partner, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICIANO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On April 14, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Quezon City rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. The defendant, Feliciano de la Cruz, through his attorney Antonio Barredo, filed his “Record on Appeal”, “Notice of Appeal”, and “Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond” on June 23, 1950. The court denied the appeal on June 24, 1950, as untimely. A copy of this denial order was served on the defendant’s attorney of record on or about June 28, 1950. Subsequently, on November 20, 1950, the defendant, through new counsel, filed a petition for relief under Rule 38, alleging that his failure to appeal seasonably was due to the mistake or excusable negligence of his former attorney. The attorney allegedly believed the 30-day appeal period ended on June 23, 1950, having received the decision copy on May 23, 1950. The trial court denied the petition for relief, declaring it was filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s petition for relief from the order denying his appeal, on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the trial court’s order denying relief is affirmed. Under Section 3 of Rule 38, a petition for relief must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the order, judgment, or proceeding from which relief is sought. The Court found that even if the 60-day period were computed from September 19, 1950 (the date the defendant personally learned of the order), the petition filed on November 20, 1950, was still beyond the 60-day limit (62 days). The Court gave weight to the trial judge’s finding and the Clerk of Court’s certification that the petition was filed on November 20, over the appellant’s own record stating it was submitted on November 18. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declined to reverse the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, noting the absence of a sworn statement from the former attorney confirming the alleged mistake or an explanation for its absence. The order appealed from was affirmed.