G.R. No. L-39518 - Agricultural and Industrial Marketing, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The case originated in the Municipal Court of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, where a complaint for damages was filed by private respondent Felix A. Fuentebella against petitioners Agricultural & Industrial Marketing, Inc., Amon Trading Corporation, and Felixberto C. Azicate. The complaint arose from an alleged breach of warranty on a "DEUTZ" diesel electric generating set sold by petitioners.

The petitioner parties failed to appear at the initial hearing on February 28, 1973, resulting in their declaration of default by respondent Judge Remigio Dizon.

Petitioners appealed the default judgment to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, presided over by Judge Alfredo S. Rebueno in Civil Case No. T-522.

Following a motion by the private respondent and petitioners’ failure to set aside their default through a proper motion, Judge Rebueno dismissed the appeal on March 28, 1974, ruling that petitioners had lost their standing due to default.

Petitioners then filed a petition for review under Republic Act 6031 before the Court of Appeals on August 8, 1974, seeking to challenge the decision rendered by the lower court.

The Court of Appeals issued a resolution on August 21, 1974, dismissing the petition for review on the ground that it had been filed eight (8) days late.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed but was ultimately denied on September 30, 1974.

Petitioners admitted to the late filing but argued that exceptional circumstances warranted suspension of the strict filing rules to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.

The judgment by default improperly included Amon Trading Corporation and Felixberto C. Azicate, even though they were not parties to the breach of warranty controversy.

The subject diesel generating set had already been repaired and restored to operating condition.

The default judgment was based on a null and void order of default, as a timely filed motion to dismiss (which lacked proper notice of hearing and other required attributes) remained unresolved, thus challenging the validity of the default.

Whether the eight-day delay in filing the petition for review can be excused under the doctrine of exceptional circumstances to serve the interest of substantial justice.
Whether petitioners’ arguments regarding the misinclusion of parties, the repair of the generating set, and the defective motion to dismiss are sufficient to overcome the strict timeliness requirement for filing appeals.
Whether the procedural mistakes—specifically, the failure to file within the reglementary period—render the petition for review inadmissible and thus justify affirming the lower court's final decision.