Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9694)
Facts:
Vicente Villanueva, et als. v. Juana Alcoba, G.R. No. L-9694. April 29, 1957, Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners (Vicente Villanueva and nine co-plaintiffs) appealed from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing their petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; the record had been forwarded to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court because only questions of law were involved.The controversy began in the Municipal Court of Manila, where the petitioners sued Juana Alcoba and Teodorico Alcoba. The municipal court absolved the Alcobas and ordered petitioner Vicente Villanueva to reimburse the defendants P1,011 plus P500 attorney’s fees; notice of that judgment dated March 17, 1952, was received on May 7, 1952 by Rosario de la Cruz, secretary-stenographer of petitioners’ counsel Alfredo Gomez. No appeal was taken within the reglementary period and the municipal judgment became final on May 22, 1952.
On June 6, 1952 the petitioners filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, alleging excusable negligence: that Rosario de la Cruz fell ill with influenza after receipt of the municipal decision, forgot to inform counsel, and thus no appeal was prosecuted. The petition declared a meritorious cause of action (a verbal contract for construction and claims by the nine co-plaintiffs) and annexed an affidavit by Rosario and a medical affidavit by Dr. Pedro Arenas certifying her illness from May 7 to June 1, 1952.
Respondents moved to dismiss (filed July 24, 1952) for failure to show excusable negligence or a good cause of action; the trial court denied the motion as premature (Aug. 2, 1952). Respondents then filed an answer (Aug. 6, 1952) denying allegations and reiterating their special defenses. At the hearing on Aug. 8, 1953 the trial court found that petitioners “submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings, without presenting any evidence,” granted respondents five days t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the trial court deprive petitioners of their right to present evidence by treating the case as submitted for judgment?
- Substantive: Did petitioners establish “excusable negligence” and comply with the affidavit-of-merits requirement under Rule 38 so as to warrant setting aside the municipal judgment and trying the pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)