G.R. No. L-15365, December 26, 1961
ASUNCION FRANCISCO and ADRIANO VILLANUEVA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, and EMILIANO ADRIANO, respondents.

FACTS

Emiliano Adriano filed a complaint in 1957 against spouses Asuncion Francisco and Adriano Villanueva, among others, to recover a share in a sales commission and damages. When the case was called for hearing on June 20, 1958, the spouses and their counsel failed to appear despite notice. The respondent court issued an order commissioning its Clerk of Court to receive the plaintiff’s evidence ex parte. On June 24, 1958, the spouses filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, asking for their day in court. However, on that same day, the court rendered a decision based on the ex parte evidence.
The court denied the first motion for reconsideration on September 15, 1958. The spouses filed a second motion on October 6, 1958, reiterating the same grounds—their lawyer’s accidental loss of his pocket calendar containing the hearing date and his clerk’s failure to notify them. This was denied on November 20, 1958, and execution was issued. Following a denied third motion, the spouses eventually filed this petition for certiorari on May 6, 1959, seeking to set aside the judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of certiorari is a proper remedy to annul a decision that has already become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the proper use of extraordinary writs. The Court emphasized that the decision dated June 24, 1958, became final after the period to appeal lapsed. The subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners did not suspend this period because the second motion was merely pro forma, as it merely repeated the allegations already contained in the first motion and did not raise new substantial grounds. A pro forma motion does not toll the reglementary period for appeal.
Consequently, the decision had attained finality long before the petition for certiorari was filed in May 1959. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal and cannot be invoked to review a judgment that has already become final and executory. The Court found no jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in proceeding with the ex parte reception of evidence and rendering judgment, as the petitioners’ failure to appear was due to the negligence of their counsel, not a denial of due process. The proper remedy against the adverse decision was a timely appeal, which the petitioners forfeited.