GR L 7795; (December, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7795 December 24, 1955
ALEJANDRO RAFANAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SIXTO RAFANAN, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On August 21, 1952, plaintiffs Alejandro Rafanan, Josefina Rafanan, and Ernesto Rafanan filed a complaint against defendants Sixto Rafanan and Maria G. de Rafanan for recovery of a parcel of land. The Court of First Instance of La Union rendered judgment on July 27, 1953, declaring the defendants as owners. Plaintiffs received notice of the decision through counsel on July 30, 1953. They filed a notice of appeal on August 18, 1953, deposited the cash appeal bond on August 20, 1953, and filed the record on appeal on September 9, 1953. On October 3, 1953, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal for being filed out of time and granted execution. Plaintiffs received the dismissal order on October 8, 1953, filed a motion for reconsideration on October 9, 1953, which was denied on November 7, 1953 (received by plaintiffs on November 13, 1953). Plaintiffs then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court on December 9, 1953, which was dismissed on December 11, 1953. Finally, on January 7, 1954, plaintiffs filed a petition for relief with the lower court, alleging excusable neglect, which was denied on February 15, 1954, for being filed beyond the period in Rule 38, Section 3. Plaintiffs appealed this denial.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for relief under Rule 38 was filed within the prescribed period, considering the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the petition for relief. Under Rule 38, Section 3, a petition for relief must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or order, and not beyond six months after its entry. Plaintiffs received the dismissal order on October 8, 1953, giving them until December 8, 1953, to file the petition. Their petition filed on January 7, 1954, was thirty days late. The Court held, citing Palomares vs. Jimenes, that the sixty-day period is non-extendible and never interrupted, even by a motion for reconsideration. The remedy under Rule 38 is an act of grace, requiring prompt action. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to invoke the alleged excusable negligence in their earlier motion for reconsideration, contrary to the spirit of the rules that all grounds for relief be invoked at one time. Thus, the petition was correctly denied as out of time.