G.R. No. L-10275, December 29, 1958
Melchor Maniego, petitioner, vs. Dominador B. Manalo, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Melchor Maniego filed an action for damages in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija against the respondents, who were teachers. The respondents had previously filed separate criminal complaints for serious slander against Maniego and his daughter, Lourdes Maniego, after she delivered a defamatory speech against them during a graduation ceremony. The criminal cases against Maniego were dismissed, and later, the cases against his daughter were also dismissed. In the civil case for damages, the trial court rendered a judgment on August 9, 1955, dismissing Maniego’s complaint and ordering him to pay each respondent P200 as moral and pecuniary damages. Maniego received a copy of the judgment on August 22, 1955. He filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial on September 22, 1955, which the court denied on October 5, 1955, for being filed one day late. Maniego’s counsel explained the delay was due to his clerk’s error in annotating the date of receipt as August 23, 1955, instead of the actual date of August 22, 1955, as shown by the registry return card. On October 28, 1955, Maniego filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of denial. The trial court denied this motion on November 7, 1955, and subsequently held that a notice of appeal filed on November 15, 1955, was also filed out of time. Maniego then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment, and in denying the appeal, based on a one-day delay caused by counsel’s clerk’s mistake in noting the date of receipt of the judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that it need not decide whether the clerk’s mistake was an excusable neglect warranting relief because the motion for reconsideration of the order of denial (which could be deemed a petition for relief under Rule 38) failed to allege and show facts constituting a good and substantial cause of action or defense that could be proven if the petition were granted. Furthermore, the Court noted that from August 22 or 23, 1955 (the date of notice of judgment), to October 28, 1955 (when the motion for relief was filed), more than 60 days had elapsed, thereby barring the availability of relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.