GR L 12827; (February, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12827; February 29, 1960
SMITH BELL AND CO., LTD., plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE MILLING CO., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On March 12, 1956, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff-appellee Smith Bell and Co., Ltd., and against defendant-appellant Philippine Milling Co., for the sum of P2,125.00 plus attorney’s fees and costs. The decision was rendered after a hearing where only the plaintiff presented evidence, as the defendant failed to appear. The defendant received a copy of this decision on March 16, 1956. Instead of appealing, the defendant filed a petition for “Relief from Judgment” on April 2, 1956. This petition was denied for lack of merit by the court in an order dated April 16, 1956, a copy of which the defendant received on April 21, 1956. Subsequently, on May 29, 1956, the defendant filed a second petition titled “Relief from Judgment with Preliminary Injunction.” The lower court denied this second petition on July 21, 1956, reasoning that even if the first petition were treated as a motion for reconsideration, the defendant’s proper remedy after its denial was to appeal the original decision, which it failed to do. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration of this denial was also rejected, prompting the present appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly denied defendant-appellant’s second petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the lower court’s denial is affirmed. The petition for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment to be set aside. This 60-day period is non-extendible and never interrupted. The defendant learned of the judgment on March 16, 1956, when it received a copy. Its second petition for relief was filed on May 29, 1956, which is 74 days later, or 14 days beyond the reglementary period. Therefore, the petition was filed out of time and could no longer be entertained. Furthermore, the defendant had the opportunity to appeal the decision, especially after its first petition (construed as a motion for reconsideration) was denied on April 21, 1956, but it failed to do so, allowing the judgment to become final. Relief under Rule 38 is not available to a party whose loss of the legal remedy was due to its own negligence. The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the defendant-appellant.