SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PHILIPPINE MILLING CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, denying defendant-appellant’s petition for relief from judgment
under Rule 38. The appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, but that
Court has certified the case to us on the ground that the question
involved is purely legal.

It appears that on March 12, 1956 a decision was rendered in civil case No. 27201 by the court a quo
against the defendant-appellant and in favor of plaintiff-appellee for
the amount of P2,125.00, plus attorney’s, fees and costs. The court
handed down the decision after hearing plaintiffs evidence, the
defendant having, failed to appear at the hearing.

Defendant received a copy of the decision on March 16, 1956, but
instead of appealing therefrom, it filed on April 2, 1956 a petition
entitled “Relief from Judgment.” The petition was, however, denied for
lack of merit in an order dated April 16, copy of which was received by
defendant on April 21.

The judgment subsequently became final and on May 21, 1956, upon
motion filed by plaintiff with notice to defendant, the writ of
execution was issued.

On May 29, 1956, defendant filed another petition, for “Relief from
Judgment with Preliminary Injunction.” Acting upon the petition, the
court a quo on July 21, 1956 denied the same, the court stating that—

“Even considering defendants’ pleading, entitled
‘RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT’, dated March 31, 1956, filed on April 2, 1966,
to be a mere motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was
denied by the Court in its order of April 15, 1956, the proper remedy
for the defendant was to appeal from the decision of March 12, 1956,
after the Court had refused to reconsider said decision because at that
time the decision had not as yet become final. The failure of the
defendant to appear from the decision after the Court had denied to
reconsider it before it had become final, deprives the said defendant
of the right to file a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38
of the Rules of Court.”

The motion for reconsideration of the above-mentioned order having been also denied, defendant filed the present appeal.

The appeal is without merit.

The petition for relief, under Rule 38 of the Rules of’ Court must
be filed “within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the
judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside * * *.” The period
is non-extendible and is never interrupted. As stated in the case of
Palomares et al, vs. Jimenez (90 Phil., 773):

“* * * Considering the purpose behind it, the period
fixed by Rule 38 is non-extendible and is never interrupted. It is not
subject to any condition or contingency, because it is itself devised
to meet a condition or contingency, The remedy allowed by Rule 38 is an
act of grace, as it were, designed to give the aggrieved party another
and last chance. Being in the position of one who begs, such party’s
privilege is not to impose conditions, haggle or dillydally, but to
grab what is offered him.” (See also Rafanan vs. Rafanan, 98 Phil., 162, 52 Off. Gaz., 229.)

It is not disputed that defendant received its copy of the decision
sought to be set aside and learned of it on March 16, 1956. From that
date to May 29, 1956, when said defendant filed its second petition for
“Relief from Judgment with Preliminary Injunction”, 74 days had already
elapsed. The petition, therefore, could no longer be properly
entertained, it having been filed 14 days too late.

Moreover, as observed by the lower court, defendant could have
appealed the decision it now seeks to set aside but failed to do so,
thereby allowing it to become final. Thus, even after April 21, 1956,
when defendant received a copy of the order denying its first petition
for relief—which may be considered a motion for reconsideration—it
still had several days within which to perfect an appeal. Such being
the case, it could no longer avail itself of the remedy under Rule 38.
Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the
effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to its
negligence. (Robles et al. vs. San Jose et al., 99 Phil., 658; 52 Off. Gaz. 6193.)

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result.