GR L 14016; (January, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14016; January 30, 1960
ALFREDO FORMOSO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. DELFIN S. FLORES, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, spouses Malacas, filed a complaint for damages against petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. Petitioners filed an answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaim. At the trial, neither the defendants (petitioners) nor their counsel appeared, so the plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Petitioners alleged they were not duly notified of the hearing nor served a copy of the decision. They filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court three days after petitioner Santiago Sambrano allegedly first learned of the decision. The respondent Judge denied the petition on November 29, 1957, finding the reasons “not satisfactory.” Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal and moved for approval of the amended record on appeal and appeal bond. The lower court refused to approve the record on appeal in its orders dated February 15, 1958, and denied a motion for reconsideration on June 17, 1958, stating that appeal was not the proper remedy, without specifying a basis. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus.
ISSUE
Whether the denial of a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a final order that can be appealed.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in refusing to approve the record on appeal. It held that the refusal to grant relief under Rule 38 is not merely an interlocutory order but a final one that can be appealed. The Court cited precedents (Paner vs. Yatco and Philippine Manufacturing Co. vs. Imperial) to support this. The sufficiency of the petition for relief is extraneous to the appealability of the order of denial. While certiorari may be available in cases of grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved party is not compelled to resort to it and may elect to appeal. Therefore, the writs were granted, the orders under review were set aside, and the respondent Judge was ordered to give due course to petitioners’ appeal. Costs were awarded against respondents Malacas spouses.