Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > April 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15404 April 25, 1962 - ILDEFONSO SUZARA v. HERMONES CALUAG, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15404. April 25, 1962.]

ILDEFONSO SUZARA, Petitioner, v. HON. HERMONES CALUAG, ET AL., Respondents.

Abelardo P. Cecilio for Respondents.

Dominador Padilla for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; PETITION FOR RELIEF; REQUISITES. — In order that a motion may be considered as a petition for relief, the following requisites must be present (1) it must be verified; (2) it must be filed within 60 days from the time petitioner learns of the decision but not more than 6 months from entry thereof; and (3) the petition must be accompanied by affidavits of merit showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon and the facts constituting petitioner’s cause of action or defense.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR; RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL CANNOT BE DENIED. — When petitioner’s motion for new trial is verified and sets forth his special defense as well as the facts on which it is based insinuating that the amounts claimed are not true and correct and part thereof constitutes a violation of the Usury Law, the trial Court cannot deny petitioner’s right of appeal from the order denying said motion for new trial unless it appears that the appeal is flagrantly frivolous.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On August 8, 1958, Aurora de Castro filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City seeking to recover from Ildefonso Suzara the sum of P2,000.00 and P1,152.00 on two causes of action. Defendant failed to file his answer within the reglementary period and so plaintiff filed a motion to declare him in default. On October 13, 1958, the court declared defendant in default, and after allowing plaintiff to present her evidence, it rendered judgment against defendant as prayed for in the complaint.

Before defendant became aware of the order of default and of the judgment rendered against him, he filed on November 17, 1958 his answer wherein he alleged as defense that the amounts which plaintiff seeks to collect are usurious. On November 19, 1958, when he learned of the order of default and the judgment rendered against him, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration which was verified although not accompanied by affidavits of merit. On November 29, 1958, the court denied the motion, but issued a writ of execution of its decision. On December 17, 1958, defendant gave notice of appeal from the order denying his motion to set aside the order of default, which was followed by the record on appeal and appeal bond, but the court denied the appeal on the ground that defendant having been declared in default has no standing in court, while his petition for relief was presented out of time. Hence, defendant interposed the present petition for certiorari.

It should be stated at the outset that while the present petition partakes of the nature of a certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court a quo, it however asks that respondent judge be ordered to give course to petitioner’s appeal. In effect, therefore, it is a petition for mandamus.

There is no dispute that petitioner was declared in default because of his failure to file his answer within the reglementary period, and as a result judgment was rendered against him on October 20, 1958. On November 19, 1958, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was verified although it was not accompanied by the required affidavits of merit. It is probably for this reason that the court a quo denied the motion and instead issued a writ of execution of the decision. The question that now arises is: Can said motion for reconsideration be considered as a petition for relief under Section 2, Rule 38, of our Rules of Court? Should the answer be in the affirmative, can that motion be considered as one filed in accordance with our rules?

In order that said motion may be considered as a petition for relief, the following requisites must be present: (1) it must be verified; (2) it must be filed within 60 days from the time petitioner learns of the decision but not more than 6 months from entry thereof; and (3) the petition must be accompanied by affidavits of merit showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon and the facts constituting petitioner’s cause of action or defense. Here it appears that the motion was filed before the reglementary period for appeal has expired, or before the decision has become final and executory. In other words, the motion was filed before entry of judgment and so it cannot be considered as a petition for relief. Thus, in Quirino v. Philippine National Bank, Et Al., G.R. No. L-9159, May 31, 1957, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We are in complete accord with the trial court and counsel for the appellee bank in the position taken by them. When the appellant filed his petition for relief before the Court of First Instance, the judgment against him by the Justice of the Peace had not yet become final and executory. Consequently, relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court was not in order for the reason that said relief is available only after a decision or a judgment from which relief is sought is final and executory. Such is our ruling in the case of Veluz v. Justice of the Peace Court of Sariaya, 42 Phil., 557, wherein we said. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The motion filed by petitioner cannot therefore be considered in any other light than that of a motion for new trial for in effect it seeks to set aside the order and judgment of default based on fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, as provided for in Section 1, Rule 37 of our Rules of Court. Even then, said rule requires that the motion be accompanied by affidavits of merit, which was not done in the present case. This is perhaps the reason why the court a quo denied it even though it does not say so in so many words.

But petitioner contends that the lower court erred in denying him his right to appeal. He contends that his motion was verified and sets forth his special defense as well as the facts on which it is based. It states in effect that the amounts claimed are not true and correct and part thereof constitutes a violation of the Usury Law. He claims that his motion substantially complies with the rule and so the lower court erred in denying him his right to appeal.

We believe that this is a right which the trial court cannot deny unless it appears that the appeal is flagrantly frivolous and having denied it without any valid reason, the court a quo committed an abuse of discretion which needs to be corrected. 1 We find, therefore, the present petition justified.

WHEREFORE, petition is granted. Respondent court is ordered to give course to the appeal of petitioner, with costs against respondent Aurora de Castro.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. De la Paz v. Biring, Et Al., L-6625, March 31, 1955; Coquiliano v. Buenaventura L-2134, September 1, 1955; Medran v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-1350, March 26, 1949; Tecson, Et. Al. v. Melendres, Et Al., L-3824, May 16, 1951.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18462 April 13, 1962 - MENELEO B. BERNARDEZ v. FRANCISCO T. VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-13704 April 18, 1962 - BENJAMIN T. ASUNCION v. LUZ DE ASIS DE AQUINO, ETC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15162 April 18, 1962 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16642 April 18, 1962 - ANTONIO RAGUDO, ET AL. v. EMELITA R. PASNO

  • G.R. No. L-16864 April 18, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ CO. INC. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19440 and L-19447 April 18, 1962 - CESAR CLIMACO, ET AL. v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 518 April 23, 1962 - DOMINADOR CARLOS v. BENIGNO PALAGANAS

  • G.R. No. L-11816 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14716 April 23, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. JOSE SISON

  • G.R. No. L-15499 April 23, 1962 - ANGELA M. BUTTE v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15634 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO LLANTO

  • G.R. No. L-15714 April 23, 1962 - LORENZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15778 April 23, 1962 - TAN TIONG BIO, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15892 April 23, 1962 - FERNANDO LACSON, ET AL. v. BACOLOD CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16665 April 23, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO SANTELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17344 April 23, 1962 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17349 April 23, 1962 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. MARTIN ARTOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12219 April 25, 1962 - FRANCISCO PASCUAL v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13918 April 25, 1962 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-14530 April 25, 1962 - LEONA AGLIBOT, ET AL. v. ANDREA ACAY MAÑALAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14591 April 25, 1962 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE P. DANS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15080 April 25, 1962 - IN RE: RICARDO R. CARABALLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15404 April 25, 1962 - ILDEFONSO SUZARA v. HERMONES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16066 April 25, 1962 - ENCARNACION BACANI, ET AL. v. FELICISIMA PAZ SAMIA GALAURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16856 April 25, 1962 - OLIVO G. RUIZ v. CEDAR V. PASTOR

  • G.R. No. L-16954 April 25, 1962 - ARMINIO RIVERA v. LITAM & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16997 April 25, 1962 - RAMCAR INCORPORATED v. DOMINGO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-17016 April 25, 1962 - WORLDWIDE PAPER MILLS, INC. v. LABOR STANDARDS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12174 April 26, 1962 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-14455 April 26, 1962 - LINO GUTIERREZ v. LUCIANO L. MEDEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15369 April 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15427 April 26, 1962 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. ELPIDIO FLORESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15638 April 26, 1962 - HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. v. FRANCISCO F. GONZALES IV

  • G.R. No. L-16384 April 26, 1962 - IN RE: JAYME S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • Nos. L-17325 and L-16594 April 26, 1962


  • SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; PERCENTAGE TAXES; FORFEITURE OF BOND WITHIN TEN YEARS. — Upon the execution of a bond to guarantee the payment of an internal revenue tax, the tax-payer, as principal, and the bondsman, as surety, assumed an obligation entirely distinct from the tax and became subject to an entirely different kind of liability. A bond being a written contract imposing rights and liabilities, the government, pursuant to article 1144 of the new Civil Code, has the right to take court action for its forfeiture within 10 years from the accrual of the right of action.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 332 (c) OF REVENUE CODE NOT APPLICABLE. — Section 332 (c) of the Revenue Code, is not applicable to actions for forfeiture of bonds. The period of limitation provided in this section is evidently confined to actions for the collection of taxes.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF TAX INTERRUPTED BY EXECUTION OF BOND. — Obligations contracted in a bond by a tax-payer constitute written acknowledgments of the debt and interrupt the 5-year period of prescription for the payment of tax.

    G.R. No. L-15265 April 27, 1962 - BAGUIO GOLD MINING COMPANY v. BENJAMIN TABISOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16467 April 27, 1962 - FLORENTINA MATA DE STUART v. NICASIO YATCO

  • G.R. No. L-11964 April 28, 1962 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-12116 April 28, 1962 - MACARIA TINIO DE DOMINGO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12570 April 28, 1962 - VICENTE PAZ, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14166 & L-14320 April 28, 1962 - FINLEY J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14231 April 28, 1962 - CATALINO BALBECINO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14546-47 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14833 April 28, 1962 - OROMECA LUMBER CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15089 April 28, 1962 - TEODULO DOMINGUEZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN B. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15338 April 28, 1962 - CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-PAFLU v. ANTONIO LUCERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16005 April 28, 1962 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-16172 April 28, 1962 - ARSENIO SUMILANG v. GUALBERTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16219 April 28, 1962 - NATIVIDAD VERNUS-SANGCIANGCO v. DIOSDADO SANGCIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16716 April 28, 1962 - PEDRO R. JAO, ET AL. v. ROYAL FINANCING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16804 April 28, 1962 - FRANCO J. ALTOMONTE v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN DRUG COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17044 April 28, 1962 - EUSTAQUIO JUAN, ET AL. v. VICENTE ZUÑIGA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17047 April 28, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT TERMINAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17247 April 28, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17481 & L-17537-59 April 28, 1962 - LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17887 April 28, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18751 April 28, 1962 - A. C. ESGUERRA & SONS v. DOMINADOR R. AYTONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10909 April 30, 1962 - ADELAIDA TABOTABO, ET AL. v. AGUEDO TABOTABO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16843 April 30, 1962 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17082 April 30, 1962 - MERCEDES RAFFIÑAN v. FELIPE L. ABEL

  • G.R. No. L-17378 April 30, 1962 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.