G.R. No. 39478; February 24, 1934
PROCESO ECHARRI and GREGORIA AZORES, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, et al., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores were defendants in a prior civil case (No. 5444) filed by defendant-appellee Juan Belen Velasco for breach of contract. The court rendered judgment against them. They moved for a new trial and announced their intention to appeal, but their counsel filed the bill of exceptions two days late, causing the judgment to become final. A writ of execution was subsequently issued. They then filed the present action seeking to vacate the prior judgment under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging it was obtained through fraud, specifically pointing to Velasco’s testimony about receiving and returning shares of stock.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs-appellants have the right to institute an independent action to vacate a final judgment, allegedly obtained through fraud, after they lost their ordinary remedy of appeal due to the negligence of their counsel.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the relief under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for judgments taken through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect) cannot be invoked by a party who had an adequate remedy at law (the appeal) but lost it through their own or their counsel’s negligence. Since the appellants admitted the judgment became final due to their counsel’s negligence in filing the bill of exceptions late, they are barred from seeking the equitable remedy to set aside the judgment. The appeal was deemed frivolous.
AI Generated by Armztrong.