GR L 18569; (June, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18569 June 22, 1965
PLACIDO ANTONIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PETRONILO JACINTO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On March 28, 1958, plaintiffs, children and grandchildren of the deceased registered owners Mariano Antonio and Micaela Cudiamat, sued defendant Petronilo Jacinto in the Court of First Instance of Isabela for recovery of possession of about 2-½ hectares of land. Defendant received the summons and complaint on April 12, 1958. On April 26, 1958, his counsel, Attorney S. P. Tabangay, filed a motion for a 10-day extension from April 28 to file an answer, claiming he was only engaged that day. The last day to answer was actually April 27. Due to the judge of Branch II (Cauayan) being on leave, the motion and records were sent to Judge Manuel Arranz of Branch I (Ilagan) as vacation judge. A mail strike delayed the records’ arrival until May 14, by which time the regular judge of Branch II, Judge Pedro C. Quinto, had returned. Judge Arranz thus returned the records to Branch II on June 23 without acting on the motion. Subsequently, the court, on plaintiffs’ motion, declared defendant in default, denied his unverified motion for reconsideration lacking an affidavit of merit, and rendered judgment against him on July 16, 1958, ordering him to vacate and pay damages. On July 28, 1958, defendant filed a verified petition for relief from judgment with supporting affidavits of merit and an attached answer, alleging he bought the land from the deceased spouses. The lower court denied this petition on March 10, 1959.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court committed reversible error in denying defendant’s petition for relief from the default order and judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the petition for relief. The Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relief. It noted that defendant’s counsel should have filed the answer while the extension motion was pending. Furthermore, the initial motion for reconsideration of the default order was defective for lack of verification and an affidavit of merit as required by the Rules. A motion for relief is addressed to the court’s sound discretion, and under the circumstances, no abuse was found. The Court also clarified that under the Revised Rules of Court (Rule 41, Section 2), a party declared in default may appeal the judgment on the merits even without a prior Rule 38 petition for relief.