G.R. No. L-15326. October 25, 1960
SEVERINO SAMSON, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. DIONISIO DINGLASA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.
BARRERA, J.:
his petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Severino
Samson interposed this appeal.
On February 3, 1951, respondent Dionisio Dinglasa filed with the
above-mentioned court, a complaint (Civil Case No. 273) against petitioner
Severino Samson seeking judgment for the redemption of a parcel of land
originally obtained by him by homestead patent and, subsequently, sold to Samson
on December 13, 1947. After answer by respondent and subsequent due trial, the
court, on November 15, 1956, rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which
reads:
“In view of the foregoing, judgment is entered:
“(1) Ordering the defendant herein (herein petitioner) to execute the
corresponding deed of resale of the property in question, to the plaintiff
(herein respondent) immediately after the decision herein has become final,
without the necessity of returning the consideration of P2,000.00 which was
compensated by the income of the property for the period of (5) years and eight
(8) months enjoyed by the defendant which should have been enjoyed by the
plaintiff if the defendant had complied with the law;“(2) Ordering the defendant to reimburse plaintiff balance of P1,300.00;
and“(3) Ordering the defendant to pay the attorney’s fees in the sum of P500.00
and to pay the costs of this proceedings.“So ordered.”
Copy of this decision was served on petitioner on November 21, 1956. On
December 8, 1956, he filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied
by the court in its order of February 28, 1957, copy of which was received by
petitioner on March 16, 1957. On April 2, 1957, petitioner filed a notice of
appeal and appeal bond and on April 5, 1957 his record on appeal. On June 12,
1957, respondent filed a motion to dismiss said appeal, which was granted by the
court, on December 3, 1957, in an order which states:
“This is a motion for dismissal of appeal filed by the plaintiff (herein
respondent) in the above entitled case, dated June 12, 1957.“It appears of record that counsel for the defendant received a copy of the
decision in this case on November 21, 1956 as evidenced by the return card of
Registry Receipt No. 4253; that on December 10, 1956, defendant filed a motion
for reconsideration which was resolved by the court on February 28, 1957, copy
of which order was served on the defendant on March 16, 1957; and that on April
4, 1957, defendant filed his appeal therein.“Granting that the motion for reconsideration was mailed by the defendant on
December 8, 1956, and the appeal was sent to the maif on April 2, 1957, still
the number of days counted from the time of the receipt of the decision by the
defendant until the appeal was presented is thrity-three (33) days, which is
more than the time allowed by law for the appeal.“Wherefore, the appeal is hereby ordered dismissed.
“So ordered.”
From said order of dismissal, petitioner, on December 14, 1957, filed with
this Court a petition for certiorari (docketed as G. R. No. L-13263). We
dismissed said petition for lack of merit, by resolution of January 17, 1958.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration thereof, but we denied the same on
February 10, 1958.
On June 25, 1958, petitioner filed with the lower court the present petition
for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, praying, inter
alia, that the decision of November 15, 1956 be set aside, and that a writ
of preliminary injunction be issued, to inhibit the Sheriff from enforcing said
decision. Preliminary injunction was granted ex-parte to petitioner on
June 30, 1958.
On July 8, 1958, respondent filed a motion for dissolution of said
preliminary injunction. On July 10, 1958, he filed a motion to dismiss said
petition for relief, on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary
period provided in Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. On December 29,
1958, the court dismissed the petition for relief, in an order reading thus:
“This is a case for injunction. The plaintiff has been granted injunction
ex-parte and filed a bond of P600.00 in this case. It appears that
plaintiff-petitioner seeks relief from a judgment of this Court on the Civil
Case No. 273 and the relief sought for could be had either (1) on the 60-day
period after the petitioner learns of the judgment, or (2) within six months but
not more than that period after the proceeding was taken. (Sec. 3, Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court.)“The petitioner seeks relief from an order dated September 12, 1956, page 2
of petitioner’s pleading, or from the judgment of November 15, 1956.“As the petitioner seeks relief from the order of September 12, 1956 (Section
3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court), this is already beyond the 60-day period; on
the other hand, the relief sought to be availed of is beyond the 6-month period
after the proceedings were taken, for the petition was filed in June (25),
1958;“The petitioner has interposed as a reason for his inability to know the
judgment because of lack of letter-carriers in the place. This allegation is
flimsy. And it appearing that the injunction granted ex-parte lacks
merit as the decision in the Civil Case No. 273 is already final;“Wherefore, the petition is hereby denied, and the injunction granted to the
petitioner is hereby ordered cancelled.
Hence, this appeal.
The only issue[1] to be resolved in
this case is whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for relief
from judgment (of November 15, 1956) filed by petitioner on June 25, 1958.
“Sec. 3. When petition filed; contents omd verification. – A
petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this ruie must be
verified, filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment,
order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after
such judgment or order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and
substantial cause of action or defense1, as the case may be, which he may prove
if his petition be granted.”
Under this provision of the Rules of Court, two prescriptive periods are to
be taken into account. The first is 60 days after the petitioner learns of the
judgment, order or proceeding complained of. The second is 6 months after such
judgment, order or proceeding has taken place. The second period is a limitation
to the first. The petition must be filed within 60 days after knowledge is
acquired of the proceeding, provided it is not beyond 6 months after the
proceeding has actually occurred. (1 Moran, Comments on the, Rules of Court
[1952 Ed.] 778-779.)
It is not disputed, in the instant case, that the decision was rendered by
the lower court on November 15, 1956. A copy of said decision was received by
petitioner on November 21, 1956. Petitioner, however, filed the petition for
relief in question only on June 25, 1958, which was 1 year, 7 months, and 4 days
after he learned of said decision (on November 21, 1956), much beyond the
reglementary period provided in the above-quoted Section 3, Rule 38 for filing
the same. And, if the period be counted from March 30,1957, the date when said
decision became final, no appeal having been perfected within the reglementary
period pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, a period of 1 year,
2 months, and 25 days had elapsed at the time of the filing of the petition for
relief in question on June 25, 1958, which is likewise beyond the 6-month
period. In fine, whether the period be computed from the time petitioner learned
of the decision, or from the time it became final, the petition for relief in
question was filed beyond the two reglementary periods aforementioned.
Consequently, the lower court’s dismissal of said petition was correct.
Wherefore, finding no error in the order appealed from, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
[1] Petitioner has assigned 5 errors
allegedly committed by the lower court. We will resolve only Error No. 5 (the
issue above-stated), as Errors Nos. 1 to 4 have been the subject of G.R. No.
L-13263 (petition for certiorari) and, therefore, res
judicata.