Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > February 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 39478 February 24, 1934 - PROCESO ECHARRI, ET AL. v. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, ET AL.

059 Phil 570:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39478. February 24, 1934.]

PROCESO ECHARRI and GREGORIA AZORES, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, FELIPE COSICO, MARCELINO DYNING, PASTOR MARIÑO and FELICIANO EXCONDE, Defendants-Appellees.

Basa & Aure for Appellants.

Zacarias B. Ticzon, Pablo G. Cornista and Epitacio T. Panganiban for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; LEGAL REMEDIES; LOSS OF RIGHT THERETO. — It is a rule of law that relief will in no case be granted to a party, who seeks to be relieved from the effects of a judgment which he claims has been obtained against him through fraud, where the loss of the remedy at law was due to such party’s own negligence or fault or that of his counsel (34 Corpus Juris, 437, 438).

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The relief granted by section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a party against whom a judgment, order, or other proceeding has been taken through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, may not be invoked by said party if he has an adequate remedy at law for the purpose of vacating such judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against him through fraud, but has lost in through his own negligence or that of his counsel.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the plaintiffs Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores from an order of the Court of First Instance of Laguna sustaining the demurrer to the said plaintiffs’ complaint and ordering them to amend the same within the reglementary period, on the ground that the facts therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action, inasmuch as every legal remedy for the purpose of having the judgment rendered against them set aside has already prescribed and the allegations contained in the complaint are vague.

In support of their appeal the appellants assign the following alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The Hon. Court a quo erred in sustaining the demurrer interposed by the defendant and appellee Juan Belen Velasco, for not overruling it and for not ordering the said appellee to answer the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

"2. The Hon. Court a quo erred in dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs-appellants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The pertinent facts necessary for the solution of the question of procedural law raised in this appeal and which have been impliedly and hypothetically admitted through the filing of the demurrer in question are those which are alleged in the complaint as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On March 24, 1930, the herein defendant and appellee Juan Belen Velasco brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, civil case No. 5444 of said court, against the herein plaintiffs- appellants Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores for breach of the contract dated November 4, 1929. Juan Belen Velasco, testifying in his favor at the trial of said case, said, among other things, that he had really received the 45 shares of stock of the Belen Velasco Transportation Co. mentioned in the said contract, which shares he bound himself to acquire in payment of the sum of P4,500 loaned by him to the said plaintiffs-spouses Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores, but he returned them later because the said spouses had transferred to Cayetano Orlanes their shares in the said Belen Velasco Transportation Co., Inc.

The court, in its judgment rendered in the said civil case No. 5444 on March 11, 1931, condemned the herein plaintiffs Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores to pay jointly and severally to Juan Belen Velasco the sum P4,500 together with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from November 4, 1929, until fully paid, with costs.

The defendants in the former case, within the reglementary period, excepted to the said judgment, filed a motion for a new trial, excepted to the order denying said motion, and announced their intention to appeal, but due to the negligence and inadvertence of their counsel, they filed their bill of exceptions two days after the expiration of the period allowed by the law for that purpose.

The judgment of the court having become final for lack of appeal, a writ of execution for the sum of P4,500 plus interest thereon in the sum of P830.83 was issued on May 28, 1931.

The principal question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not the plaintiffs-appellants have the right to institute this action for the purpose of vacating the judgment, alleged to have been obtained through fraud, in accordance with the provisions of section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It will noted that in civil case No. 5444 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, wherein Juan Belen Velasco was plaintiff and Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores, the defendants, the court rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: "Wherefore, this court renders judgment condemning the defendants Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff Juan Belen Velasco the sum of P4,500 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from November 4, 1929, until fully paid, with the costs against the said defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The therein defendants Proceso Echarri and Gregoria Azores, plaintiffs in this case, excepted to the said judgment, applied for a new trial, which was denied, and announced their intention to appeal after having excepted to the order denying their motion for a new trial but, through negligence or inadvertence on the part of their counsel, they did not file their bill of exceptions until two days after the expiration of the period allowed by the law for that purpose. In consequence of such failure, the aforesaid judgment became final and the corresponding order of execution for the sum of P4,500 plus interest thereon in the sum of P830.83 was issued on May 28, 1931.

It will also noted that the plaintiffs themselves admit that the judgment, which was rendered against them by the Court of First Instance of Laguna in civil case No. 5444, become final by reason of their counsel’s negligence to file the bill of exceptions on time.

The plaintiffs-appellant had, therefore, an adequate remedy at law for the purpose of vacating the judgment claimed to have been obtained by the defendant-appellee through fraud, and it is a rule of law that relief will in no case be granted to a party, who seeks to be relieved from the effects of a judgment which he claims has been obtained against him through fraud, where the loss of the remedy at law was due to said party’s own negligence or fault or that of his counsel (34 Corpus Juris, 437, 438).

In view of the foregoing, this court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the relief granted by section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a party against whom a judgment, order, or other proceedings has been taken through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, may not be invoked by such party if he has as adequate remedy at law for the purpose of vacating such judgment, order, or other proceeding taken against him through fraud, but has lost his own negligence or that of his counsel.

Wherefore, finding no error in the order appealed from, it is hereby affirmed in toto with double costs against the appellants, the appeal being frivolous. So ordered.

Malcolm, Hull, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.




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






February-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 39590 February 6, 1934 - JESUS AZCONA v. ALBERTA L. REYES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 39607 February 6, 1934 - ENCARNACION MAGALONA, ET AL. v. JUAN PESAYCO

    059 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 39933 February 6, 1934 - RODOLFO TORRELA v. JOSE PEREZ MINGUEZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41072 February 7, 1934 - PO SUN TUN v. EMILIO MAPA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 37197 February 8, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCELO TURNO

    059 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 39696 February 8, 1934 - MARIA GUERRERO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 39889 February 8, 1934 - SEINOSUKE OGURA v. SOTERO CHUA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 39425 February 10, 1934 - SILVERIO F. GARCIA v. JOSE A. DE ARAMBURO and ELVIRA VEGUILLAS DE ARAMBURO

    059 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 38765 February 12, 1934 - LUIS MA. ROBLES v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 39802 February 12, 1934 - DOROTEA MENDOZA VIUDA DE BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. ANTONIA CECILIO VIUDA DE PARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 40233 February 14, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 40390 February 14, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE C. NAVALES

    059 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 40849 February 14, 1934 - PERFECTO CORTIGUERA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    059 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 40266 February 15, 1934 - PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO NOMBRE DE JESUS v. C. H. CONRAD

    059 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 40203 February 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SANTIAGO GIMENA

    059 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 37866 February 17, 1934 - NICANOR JACINTO v. JUANA FAJARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 40620 February 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    059 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 40684 February 17, 1934 - CHUA GO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 39881 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 39882 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 40602 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO BERIO

    059 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 39177 February 21, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TAN DIONG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 40008 February 21, 1934 - PAULINO ACOSTA v. NICOLAS LLACUNA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 38612 February 23, 1934 - CIRIACO LIZADA v. OMANAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 41061 February 23, 1934 - MOISES S. AMPIL v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    059 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 41202 February 23, 1934 - LUCIO ARIZ v. CFI OF MANILA

    059 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 39427 February 24, 1934 - TIRSO GARCIA v. LIM CHU SING

    059 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 39461 February 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CORAZON DE CORTEZ

    059 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 39478 February 24, 1934 - PROCESO ECHARRI, ET AL. v. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 39634 February 27, 1934 - ROSARIO GUANZON v. GRACIANO RIVERA

    059 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 40098 February 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLAND v. FELIX AZCONA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 40705 February 28, 1934 - TOLEDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 586