G.R. No. L-15404. April 25, 1962
Ildefonso Suzara, petitioner, vs. Hon. Hermogenes Caluag, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Aurora de Castro filed a complaint against Ildefonso Suzara for the recovery of sums of money. Suzara failed to file his answer within the reglementary period, leading the trial court to declare him in default on October 13, 1958. The court subsequently rendered judgment against him based on the plaintiff’s evidence. Before learning of the default order and judgment, Suzara filed his answer on November 17, 1958, raising the defense of usury. Upon discovery of the adverse orders, he filed a verified motion for reconsideration on November 19, 1958, which, however, was not accompanied by affidavits of merit. The court denied this motion and issued a writ of execution.
When Suzara gave notice of appeal from the order denying his motion to set aside the default, the trial court denied the appeal. It ruled that a defendant declared in default had no standing in court and that his petition for relief was filed out of time. This prompted Suzara to file the present petition, which, while styled as certiorari, essentially sought mandamus to compel the respondent judge to allow his appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Suzara’s right to appeal from the order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court clarified that Suzara’s verified motion for reconsideration, filed before the judgment had become final and executory, could not be treated as a petition for relief under Rule 38, as such relief is only available after a final and executory judgment. Instead, the motion was properly a motion for new trial under Rule 37, seeking to set aside the default based on mistake or excusable negligence. While such a motion typically requires supporting affidavits of merit—a requirement Suzara’s motion lacked—the denial of the motion itself did not justify the denial of his subsequent right to appeal.
The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a fundamental right that should not be denied unless the appeal is patently frivolous. The trial court’s refusal to give due course to the appeal, after summarily dismissing the motion for reconsideration without a clear finding on the frivolity of the appeal, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court thus ordered the respondent court to allow Suzara’s appeal to proceed, thereby correcting the lower court’s error and upholding the litigant’s right to seek appellate review.