Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46674)
Procedural History
The initial complaint, an action for annulment of sale with damages, was set for pre-trial conferences after the defendants, including Laureano Arcilla, submitted their answers. However, during the pre-trial set for October 2, 1975, neither Laureano nor his counsel attended, leading the court to declare the defendants in default. Consequently, the plaintiffs presented their evidence ex parte, resulting in a judgment favoring the plaintiffs on October 27, 1976.
Petition for Relief from Judgment
On March 25, 1977, Laureano Arcilla, now represented by new counsel, filed a motion to lift the order of default and to set aside the court's decision. This motion was subsequently denied on April 12, 1977. Following this, Laureano filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on April 16, 1977, claiming he and the other defendants were not properly notified of the pre-trial session and thus could not defend themselves, which violates their right to due process.
Order Denying Relief
On May 18, 1977, the respondent Judge issued an order denying the petition for relief, stating it was filed beyond the statutory timeframe defined by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The Judge emphasized that notice to an attorney is notice to the client, meaning Laureano was considered aware of the judgment received by his former counsel on November 8, 1976. The deadline to file for relief was January 8, 1977, but the petition was filed almost four months later.
Legal Framework
The relevant provisions of Rule 38 articulate the requirements for seeking relief from judgments based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect. It stipulates a strict deadline of sixty days from when the petitioner learns of the judgment and a maximum of six months from the judgment’s entry.
Examination of Petitioner’s Arguments
While Laureano contended that he was unaware of the judgment until March 24, 1977, the court found that the lack of notice to him did not negate the legal principle that he was deemed to have received notice through his counsel. Notably, the petitioner’s argument centered on the invalidity of the default declaration, claiming that the lack of notification of the pre-trial constituted a denial of due process. However, the pre-trial date had been rescheduled in the presence of the parties, and both petitioner and his counsel failed to appear on the assigned date.
Court’s Ruling on Late Filing
The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of finality of judgments and affirmed that the all
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-46674)
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Laureano Arcilla
- Respondents: Basilisa Arcilla, Serapia Arcilla, Marcela Arcilla, Dionisia Arcilla, Zacarias Arcilla, Gavina Molo Vda. de Arcilla, Cesar M. Arcilla, Gloria M. Arcilla, Antonio M. Arcilla, Pompey M. Arcilla, Ernesto M. Arcilla, Elena M. Arcilla, Asuncion M. Arcilla, Ranulfo M. Arcilla, Igleseria A. Canete, Rosabella A. Canete, and Honorable Francis J. Militante, Presiding Judge of Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
- Case Number: G.R. No. L-46674
- Decision Date: September 16, 1985
- Nature of Action: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
- Lower Court: Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IX
- Original Case: Civil Case No. 395-T (Annulment of Sale with Damages)
Facts of the Case
- The private respondents filed a case for annulment of a deed of sale against the petitioner and others on May 28, 1973.
- The case was set for pre-trial conferences, and on July 29, 1975, the court scheduled the continuation of the pre-trial for October 2, 1975.
- On October 2, 1975, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared, leading to their declaration of default by the court, allowing the plaintiffs to present evidence ex-parte.
- A judgment was rendered on October 27, 1976, declaring the deed of sale null and void and recognizing the co-ownership of the children of Segunda O. Vda de Arcilla over certain parcels of land.
- The petitioner learned of the judgment on March 24, 1977, when his new counse