G.R. No. L-24086 January 22, 1980
PROCESO FLORA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MELITON PAJARILLAGA, JUANITO SABAS and FLORENTINO C. CARIASO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Proceso Flora appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance of La Union dismissing his action to annul a judgment from the City Court of Cabanatuan City. In the original case, Juanito Sabas sued Flora for unpaid wages. Flora was served summons on February 13, 1964. His lawyer filed a motion to dismiss by registered mail on March 5, 1964, citing improper venue and a pending labor case. This motion was received by the Cabanatuan court only on March 18, 1964. Prior to that receipt, on March 10, the court noted Flora had not filed an answer and set a hearing. On March 13, upon Sabas’s motion, the court declared Flora in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. A default judgment was rendered on March 23, ordering Flora to pay Sabas.
Flora later filed a motion to lift the order of default, which was denied. He did not appeal the default judgment. Instead, on July 10, 1964, he filed an independent action for annulment of judgment in the Court of First Instance of La Union, alleging the judgment was illegal and null because he was not given his day in court. The defendants moved to dismiss this annulment action, arguing improper venue and that Flora’s proper remedy was a petition for relief in Nueva Ecija.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Flora’s independent action for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on substantive grounds, finding the proceedings leading to the default judgment were valid. Flora’s motion to dismiss in the original case was filed 21 days after service of summons, exceeding the 20-day period to file an answer under the then Rule 5, Section 4. This delay provided a valid basis for the declaration of default. The Court noted the record lacked a copy of the motion to lift the default for proper evaluation, but highlighted that appellee contended it was filed out of the one-day reglementary period, a point Flora did not rebut.
The Court rejected Flora’s claim of improper venue in the original labor case, citing Republic Act 1171, which allowed the plaintiff to choose venue. More critically, the Court held Flora’s chosen remedy was incorrect. His allegations of not receiving notices pertained to matters of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect. The proper remedy for such grounds was a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, not an independent action for annulment. The venue for such a petition would have been in Nueva Ecija where the Cabanatuan court sits, not in La Union. Furthermore, notice of the judgment was sent by registered mail but returned unclaimed; failure to claim it could not invalidate the service. The Supreme Court, considering the case involved a laborer’s claim pending for over fifteen years, resolved any doubts in favor of the appellee laborer and affirmed the dismissal.