PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO., PETITIONER, VS. CATALINO TINIO, F.C. STELTON, AND POTENCIANO PECSON, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to annul the order of the respondent judge
of Manila dated February 10, 1948, revoking a previous order of the court of May
30, 1947 that definitely dismissed a certain civil case. The facts are
these:

1. On April 15, 1947, respondent Catalino Tinio filed, in the Manila Court of
   First Instance, a complaint to recover from herein petitioner Pacific Importing
   & Exporting Co. (hereafter called Pacific Company) the sum of P24,722.78 as
   commissions due him for sales of merchandise, and from the Manila manager of
   same defendant (F. C. Stelton) the sum of P1,150 as commission for sales of
   other goods (civil case No. 2278).

2. By its answer of April 80, 1947, the Pacific Company denied liability,
   alleged that Tinio’s employer was F. C. Stelton, and submitted a counterclaim
   for over-payment of commissions.

3. On May 12, 1947, the Pacific Company and respondent Tinio filed in the said
   civil case No. 2278 a statement praying for its definite dismissal, and
   declaring that the Pacific Company ceased to be the employer of Tinio as of
   October 1, 1946, and that F. C. Stelton stood liable to Tinio for commissions
   after that date and that the Pacific Company had paid Tinio all commissions due
   before October, 1946.

4. As prayed for, an order of definite dismissal was issued on May 30, 1947.
   The Pacific Company alleges (and respondents do not deny) that such order became
   final on June 29, 1947, there having been no appeal.

5. However, on February 3, 1948, Catalino Tinio filed a petition to set aside
   the order of dismissal, explaining that he had been fraudulently induced to sign
   it upon the strength of certain specific promises and manifestations made to him
   by the representative of the Pacific Company, promises which said company
   subsequently failed to honor and manifestations which turned out to be
   untrue.

6. On February 10, 1948, the court set aside the order of dismissal, dated May
   30, 1947, and revived the case. Then on July 13, 1948, upon a motion for
   reconsideration, it entered an order setting forth that:

   “El arreglo habido entre el demandante y la referida entidad demandada que
   culmino en la peticion de sobreseimiento de esta causa con respecto a la
   referida demandada, se fund6 en que dicha demandada ayudaria y facilitara al
   demandante todas las pruebas necesarias para establecer el hecho de que entre
   dicha demandada y el otro demandado F. C. Stelton hubo un contrato, en virtud
   del cual este ultimo asumia la responsabilidad exclusiva de todos cuantos
   contratos de empleo celebrados por el con las respectivas partes interesadas,
   entre ellos, el contrato celebrado con el aqui demandante. Esta promesa se hizo,
   no solo por la entidad demandada al hacerse el arreglo entre ella y el
   demandante, sino tambien por sus abogados ante este Juzgado, prometiendo
   facilitar el documento o documentos que el demandante necesitaria para probar su
   accion contra el otro demandado Stelton, pero es el hecho que dicha entidad
   demandada no ha cumplido, ni ha querido cumplir, pues al parecer no existe el
   documento o documentos que ha prometido facilitar al
   demandante.”

7. Another motion to reconsider was filed. It was also denied.
8. Hence this petition which is planted on the proposition that the court had
   no jurisdiction to act on the motion of February 3, 1948, because at that time
   the order of dismissal had become final and the six-month period (Rule 38, sec.
   3) within which relief could be asked on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake
   or excusable negligence had expired.

The petitioner is right. From May 30, 1947 to February 3, 1948
more than seven months had elapsed. Six months after May 30, 1947 the court lost
all jurisdiction to entertain motions for relief.

Wherefore, although we are satisfied, like the court below,
that plaintiff Tinio had been induced to consent to the dismissal through the
fraudulent misrepresentations of the Pacific Company, however, due to the
expiration of the six-month period, we must declare the court without
jurisdiction to reopen the civil case No. 2278. This, however, will be without
prejudice to Tinio’s right to bring another suit to annul the order of May 30,
1947 on the ground of fraud (which is obviously extrinsic as distinguished from
intrinsic)^[1] and at the same time, to
claim as a second cause of action for recovery of the commissions which he has
tried to obtain in the aforesaid civil case. On the other hand, the Pacific
Company should be allowed to repeat, if it so desires, the counterclaim it has
previously presented against respondent Catalino Tinio. The writ is granted,
without costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason,
Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.

---

[1] Moran Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1,
page 633 citing Anuran vs. Aquino, 38 Phil., 29, 32; Francisco vs. David and
other cases.