G.R. No. L-16473. April 20, 1961.
FELISA QUIJANO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JACINTO TAMETA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On March 23, 1955, Felisa Quijano filed a complaint for annulment of an agreement against her husband, Jacinto Tameta, before the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro. The defendant answered and set up a counterclaim. The court scheduled the trial for September 15, 1955. On September 9, 1955, the plaintiff filed an urgent motion for postponement, which the court denied. When the case was called for hearing on the trial date, the plaintiff failed to appear. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant to present his evidence ex parte and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on the same day.
The plaintiff did not file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from this decision. The clerk of court made an entry of judgment on November 9, 1955. Subsequently, on May 24, 1956, the plaintiff filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The trial court denied this petition for having been filed outside the reglementary period, prompting the plaintiff to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via the present appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied the petition for relief from judgment for being filed out of time and for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition for relief. The legal logic is anchored on the strict and jurisdictional nature of the reglementary period for filing such a petition. The Court calculated that from November 9, 1955 (the date of the entry of judgment) to May 24, 1956 (the date the petition was filed), six months and fifteen days had elapsed. This period exceeded the six-month limit expressly provided under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
The Court emphasized that a petition for relief is an equitable remedy of grace, intended as a penultimate chance to protect a litigant’s interests. Given this exceptional nature, the prescribed six-month period is non-extendible, never interrupted, and not subject to any condition or contingency. The period is designed precisely to address the very contingencies of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that the petition alleges. Therefore, filing beyond this absolute deadline is fatal to the petition.
Furthermore, the Court noted an additional procedural defect that justified denial: the petition was not accompanied by the required affidavit of merit detailing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon. This affidavit is a mandatory requirement, and failure to submit it is a sufficient ground for denial. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the denial of the petition for relief.