G.R. No. L-9694; April 29, 1957
VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET ALS., petitioners-appellants, vs. JUANA ALCOBA, ETC., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners (Vicente Villanueva and others) filed an action against respondents (Juana Alcoba and Teoderico Alcoba) in the Municipal Court of Manila. The Municipal Court rendered judgment absolving the defendants and ordering plaintiff Vicente Villanueva to reimburse the defendants. Notice of this judgment was received on May 7, 1952, by Rosario de la Cruz, secretary-stenographer of petitioners’ counsel, Alfredo Gomez. No appeal was taken within the reglementary period, making the decision final on May 22, 1952. On June 6, 1952, petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging excusable negligence. They claimed that after receiving the decision, de la Cruz fell ill with influenza, placed the decision in the filing cabinet, and forgot to inform Atty. Gomez, who only learned of the decision on June 2, 1952, upon service of a motion for execution. The petition included an affidavit from de la Cruz and a medical certificate from Dr. Pedro Arenas. It also alleged a meritorious cause of action, detailing a verbal contract for construction supervision and various debts owed by respondents to the other petitioners. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied as premature, and then an answer. When the case was called for hearing, petitioners, according to the lower court’s findings, submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings without presenting evidence. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition, finding that petitioners failed to establish excusable negligence and that they did not submit an affidavit of merits regarding their underlying cause of action.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in its procedure by allegedly preventing petitioners from introducing evidence.
2. Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for relief from judgment due to lack of excusable negligence and failure to submit an affidavit of merits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court.
1. On the procedural issue, the Court found petitioners’ claim that they were deprived of their day in court to be without merit. The record indicated that when the case was called for hearing, petitioners’ counsel formally announced he was submitting the case for judgment on the pleadings without presenting evidence. Petitioners did not challenge this factual finding in the lower court and even admitted in their pleadings related to the record on appeal that they had waived the presentation of evidence.
2. On the substantive issue, the Court held that a petition for relief on the ground of “excusable negligence” must be accompanied by an affidavit of merits stating the evidence available to establish a cause of action, which evidence must warrant a reasonable belief that the result would probably be different upon a new trial. Petitioners failed to submit such an affidavit of merits. The annexed affidavits of de la Cruz and Dr. Arenas pertained only to the alleged excusable negligence, not to the merits of the underlying action. Furthermore, the record indicated the weakness of petitioners’ evidence on the merits, as they had already presented their case before the Municipal Court, which not only absolved the respondents but also ordered petitioner Villanueva to pay them. Therefore, the petition for relief was properly dismissed.