G.R. No. L-49183; March 23, 1946
SERGIA MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. MODESTO CASTILLO, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, and the spouses GAVINO GUICO and CIPRIANA MAGPANTAY, respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered a judgment on December 23, 1943, in Civil Case No. 38 in favor of the plaintiff, Sergia Mendoza (the petitioner). The judgment ordered defendants Jose Cantos and Martina Soriano to sell a parcel of land to Mendoza for P1,200 and declared any prior sale to the other defendants, spouses Gavino Guico and Cipriana Magpantay (the respondents), null and void. It also awarded damages and costs. Within the reglementary period, respondents Guico and Magpantay filed a motion for new trial, which was essentially a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, alleging the judgment was obtained through fraud. They had been represented earlier by Atty. Pedro P. Muñoz, who filed a motion to dismiss on their behalf. On September 22, 1943, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss and directing “counsel for the defendants” to file an answer. A copy of this order was sent only to Atty. Muñoz, not directly to the respondents. No answer was filed, leading to a default judgment. Respondents claimed they did not personally appear, believing in good faith that Atty. Muñoz continued to represent them. The trial court initially denied their petition for relief on March 17, 1944, but upon reconsideration, set aside that order and vacated the December 23, 1943 judgment by an order dated March 30, 1944. Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition to annul the March 30, 1944 order and declare the original judgment final.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the respondents’ petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the respondent Judge did not act without jurisdiction but correctly applied Rule 38, sections 2 and 3. The Court found that respondents Guico and Magpantay were not served directly with the September 22, 1943 order requiring an answer and, in good faith, believed their former counsel was still representing them. This constituted a sufficient ground for relief under Rule 38 on the basis of “accident, mistake, or excusable negligence,” if not fraud. The respondent Judge’s action was aimed at administering substantial justice and ensuring the parties had their day in court. The order granting relief was upheld. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.