G.R. No. L-15234; October 31, 1960
ANTONIO PIMENTEL, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEFINA GOMEZ and MANUEL BAUTISTA, defendant-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Antonio Pimentel filed an action for damages in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bauang, La Union, against defendants Josefina Gomez and Manuel Bautista for the unauthorized cutting of trees on a lot he co-owned. The defendants denied the allegations, claiming ownership of the trees. The inferior court ruled in favor of Pimentel. The defendants perfected their appeal, and the record was transmitted to the Court of First Instance (CFI). On February 20, 1958, the CFI clerk notified the parties that the case was docketed on appeal and stated that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, the period to file a motion to dismiss or an answer would begin from receipt of the notice. The defendants failed to file an answer. On March 20, 1958, Pimentel filed an ex-parte motion to declare the defendants in default, which the court granted the next day. After the court authorized the reception of Pimentel’s evidence, a decision was rendered on October 29, 1958, ordering the defendants to pay damages. The judgment became final, and a writ of execution was issued. On January 3, 1959, the defendants filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, alleging they did not receive proper notices—only a notification of the case’s docketing—and that their failure to answer was due to their secretary’s omission to alert them. They claimed a good and substantial defense but did not allege specific facts constituting it. The lower court denied the petition, finding it unmeritorious. The defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in denying the defendants’ petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the petition for relief. The Court held:
1. The granting or denial of a Rule 38 petition is generally within the sound discretion of the court.
2. The defendants’ counsel admitted receiving the CFI clerk’s notice, which expressly stated that the period to file an answer began upon receipt, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Their claim of mistaking it for a mere notice of docketing did not constitute excusable neglect.
3. The alleged omission of the defendants’ secretary to call attention to the filing deadline did not amount to excusable neglect, as counsel was charged with knowledge of the reglementary period upon receipt of the notice.
4. The defendants failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 38, which requires an allegation of facts constituting a good and substantial defense. Their petition lacked such factual allegations.
5. A defendant declared in default loses standing in court and is not entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings, as they cannot appear or be heard.
The order was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.