GR L 5147; (June, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5147 June 2, 1953
Ildefonso Ortiz, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Hermogenes Mania, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur denying a petition to set aside a judgment by default. The defendant-appellant, Hermogenes Mania, filed a petition for relief from judgment on the ground that his failure to file an answer within the prescribed period was due to excusable negligence. He received the court’s notice requiring him to answer the complaint on January 6, 1950, but had failed to answer by February 7, 1950. He attributed his failure to his grandmother’s illness and his subsequent trip to Nueva Ecija. The trial court found this insufficient, noting that the defendant had allegedly secured the services of Attorneys Reyes and Dy-Liacco, and it was incumbent upon them to file the answer. The defendant did not file his answer until March 22, 1950. The trial court also found that the attorneys who perfected the defendant’s appeal from the justice of the peace court were his lawyers only for that specific purpose of perfecting the appeal, not for the subsequent proceedings in the Court of First Instance.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly denied the defendant-appellant’s petition for relief from judgment by default.
RULING
Yes, the trial court correctly denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the order. First, on the issue of notice, the Court held that Section 7 of Rule 40 (governing appeals from justice of the peace courts) expressly requires notice of the pendency of the appeal to be given to the parties themselves, not merely to their lawyers. This is because on such an appeal, only the complaint is deemed reproduced, and the notice to the defendant takes the place of a summons. The trial court’s finding that the defendant’s prior attorneys were retained only for perfecting the appeal was upheld. Second, on the issue of excusable negligence, the Court found no merit. While the defendant’s neglect in January might be excused due to his grandmother’s illness, he provided no excuse for his continued failure to file an answer throughout February and the first part of March. His answer was filed only on March 22, 1950, demonstrating absolute negligence in defending himself. Therefore, the petition for relief was properly denied. Costs were taxed against the appellant.