DOMINGO REBULLO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NARCISO PALO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Rebullo versus Palo

The Case

This is the case of Rebullo versus Palo, a forcible entry dispute over a parcel of land in Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Domingo Rebullo sued Narciso Palo and seven others, claiming that she had possessed the land since buying it in 1957 and that the defendants entered it in August 1958 and remained there. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean illustration of the remedy of relief from judgment under Rule 38, and of the principle that a party must not lose his day in court through a fault that is not his own. The Supreme Court decided it in July 1965.

Procedural History

The action began in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, which rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. In that court, the defendants were declared in default, and judgment was rendered against them. The defendants then moved for relief from judgment and to set aside the order of default and to admit their answer. The trial court denied the motion, although it struck out the portion of its decision declaring the plaintiff the owner of the land. That order was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court because the issues raised were purely legal. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as a question of law.

Facts

On September 13, 1958, Domingo Rebullo filed a complaint for forcible entry against Narciso Palo and seven others in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tinambac. The case was heard on November 5, 1958. On that date, counsel for the defendants made an oral answer, because the written answers mailed to the court and to the plaintiff's counsel had not yet arrived. The Justice of the Peace Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on November 12, 1958. Twelve days later, the court received the written answer that counsel had mailed.

The defendants appealed on November 15, 1958, and the record was forwarded to the Court of First Instance the following day. On January 31, 1959, within the period to file an answer, the defendants' counsel filed a manifestation adopting and reproducing their written answer filed in the Justice of the Peace Court as their answer in the Court of First Instance. The plaintiff moved to declare the defendants in default. On February 21, 1959, the trial court declared them in default and required the plaintiff to present her evidence.

The defendants moved to set aside the order of default and to admit their answer, attaching an affidavit of merit and the written answer, which had not been included when the record was elevated. In that answer, the defendants averred that the plaintiff had no right to the property because Narciso Palo was its owner. The trial court denied the motion and, on the same day, rendered judgment for the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the land, to pay 400 pesos as damages and 250 pesos as attorney's fees, and to pay the costs. The defendants then filed a motion for relief from judgment, alleging that their written answer had been mislaid and not forwarded by the Justice of the Peace Court, and that they had a valid defense of ownership supported by tax declarations and receipts. The trial court denied relief, though it struck out the declaration that the plaintiff was the owner.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in not granting the motion for relief from judgment and in not setting aside the order of default and admitting the answer.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, on relief from judgment, provides:

When a judgment or order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken, against a party in a court of first instance through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.

This provision bears on the case because the defendants' failure to have their answer considered was caused by accident or excusable negligence, namely the mislaying of their answer by the Justice of the Peace Court.

Ruling

The Supreme Court resolved the sole issue in favor of the defendants. It held that the trial court should have set aside its order of default, admitted the answer, and permitted the defendants to adduce evidence in support of their defenses. The Court stressed that the written answer had in fact been received by the Justice of the Peace Court, albeit after judgment but before appeal, and that when the defendants manifested that they were reproducing and adopting that answer, they had every reason to believe it had been forwarded. The Court found that the non-admission of the answer and the hearing conducted in the defendants' absence amounted to a denial of their day in court, since it was not their fault that the answer was mislaid. The Court acknowledged the rule on default but balanced it against the remedy of relief:

It is true that the rules provide that if Answer is not presented within the reglementary period, the defendant may be declared in default. However, it is equally true that when the failure has been occasioned by fraud, accident, mistake, and/or excusable negligence, relief may be granted.

The Court also noted that the trial court itself doubted the plaintiff's ownership, since it had expunged the portion of its decision declaring her the owner.

Doctrine

A party may be granted relief from judgment when his failure to file an answer or to have it considered is occasioned by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, as provided in Rule 38. Default should not be used to deprive a litigant of his day in court where the fault lies elsewhere, such as the mislaying of his pleading by a lower court. The rules on default must be applied in harmony with the remedy of relief from judgment, so that substantial justice is served.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the order appealed from and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, which was ordered to admit the defendants' answer and to proceed to trial and render judgment accordingly, with no special pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a default caused by accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and not by the party's fault, must be relieved under Rule 38 to preserve his day in court. Examiners use this case to test the interplay between the rules on default and the remedy of relief from judgment.