G.R. No. L-22729; February 9, 1967
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, and ARTURO T. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) obtained a judgment against respondent Arturo T. Santos in the Municipal Court of Manila. Santos received a copy of the decision on April 2, 1963, and filed a motion for reconsideration on April 10, 1963. The Municipal Court denied this motion on April 20, 1963, with notice served on Santos’s counsel on April 27, 1963. PAL petitioned for execution on May 14, 1963, and a writ of execution was issued on May 20, 1963. On July 19, 1963, Santos filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that his counsel only learned of the order denying reconsideration on July 11, 1963, due to the excusable negligence of a law office clerk who, after receiving the order, placed it in his desk, fell ill with influenza, and was absent from April 20 to May 4, 1963. The Court of First Instance initially granted PAL’s motion to dismiss the petition on January 30, 1964, and denied Santos’s first motion for reconsideration on March 2, 1964. However, upon a second motion for reconsideration supported by additional affidavits, the court set aside the dismissal and reinstated the case. PAL then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the order dismissing the petition for relief and reinstating the case based on the excuse of excusable negligence offered by respondent Santos.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the excuse offered by Santos—that his counsel’s clerk forgot to hand over the court notice due to illness—was a hackneyed and habitual subterfuge, not constitutive of excusable negligence. The Court noted that even assuming the truth of the clerk’s affidavit, the appeal period had not yet fully elapsed when the clerk returned to duty on May 4, 1963, and no excuse was shown for counsel’s failure to search the clerk’s desk or make inquiries upon his return. This failure betrayed a lack of diligent supervision that could not be accepted as excusable neglect. The Court further observed that no doctor’s certificate was attached to the original petition and that the second motion for reconsideration added nothing that could not have been alleged earlier. The respondent judge’s reversal based on such a patently concocted story revealed an indiscriminating credulity constituting grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the writ, directing the Court of First Instance to dismiss the petition for relief, with costs against Santos.