G.R. No. L-14382; November 29, 1960
REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and TOMAS L. BORROMEO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Remedios Cuenco Borromeo, as administratrix of the estate of Teofilo Borromeo, filed an action (Civil Case No. R-5031) in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against respondent Tomas L. Borromeo for accounting, liquidation, and payment of her late husband’s share in war damage claim proceeds, plus damages. The defendant answered, claiming full payment had been made. Multiple related cases were pending. For convenience, hearings for Civil Case No. R-5031 and Special Proceedings No. R-916 were scheduled consecutively. On July 8, 1957, defendant’s counsel, Atty. Crispin D. Baizas, received a motion for postponement of the special proceedings hearing. He cancelled his flight reservation and wired his collaborating counsel in Cebu, Atty. Filberto Leonardo, to request a postponement of the “Cuenco Case” (referring to Civil Case No. R-5031) or to appear for him. Atty. Leonardo mistakenly believed the “Cuenco Case” referred to a different civil case (No. R-3808). Finding it not on the calendar, he left. Consequently, when Civil Case No. R-5031 was called, neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared. The court allowed the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and rendered judgment for the plaintiff on July 11, 1957. Defendant received the judgment copy on August 2, 1957. On August 29, 1957, the defendant filed a verified motion for new trial on grounds of mistake or excusable neglect, supported by affidavits of merit. This motion was denied on September 13, 1957. On October 17, 1957 (24 days after receiving the denial order), the defendant perfected an appeal from that order denying the motion for new trial. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal as filed beyond the reglementary period. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the appeal (from the July 11 judgment) filed on the 44th day. The defendant moved for reconsideration, reiterating he was appealing from the September 13 order denying the motion for new trial, not from the July 11 judgment. Reconsideration was denied. The defendant then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which granted the writ, set aside the judgment, ordered a new trial, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant’s appeal from the order denying his motion for new trial (based on mistake or excusable neglect) was filed within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The motion for new trial, considering the facts and supporting affidavits, was deemed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court (based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence). An order denying such a motion is final and appealable. The period for appeal from such a denial is thirty days from receipt of the order. The defendant perfected his appeal on October 17, 1957, which was 24 days after receiving the September 13, 1957 denial order, well within the 30-day period. The trial court erred in computing the period from the date of the original judgment (July 11) instead of from the denial of the motion for relief. The appeal was timely and should have been allowed. The Court of Appeals’ decision to grant relief and order a new trial was correct. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.