Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1283)
Grounds for Petition
The petition for certiorari was filed on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the judge acted improperly by (1) denying a motion for relief based on excusable neglect, as per Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and (2) refusing to set aside the judgment dated November 18, 1944, arguing that it was null due to the absence of evidence in case G.R. No. 117.
Finality of Denied Motion
The court determined that the order denying the petitioner’s motion for relief was final in nature, thereby making certiorari an inappropriate remedy because it effectively concluded the ordinary proceedings of the case. The court referenced Section 2, Rule 41, noting precedence from Monteverde vs. Jaranilla, establishing that since the order ended the case, it was appealable. Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his inability to appeal was due to factors beyond his control, as he had prior knowledge of the judgment far earlier than claimed.
Awareness of Judgment
The respondent judge noted that the petitioner’s attorney was aware of the November 18, 1944 judgment more than a year before the motion for relief was filed. The petitioner’s claims regarding the ignorance of the judgment were therefore dismissed, given that the attorney received a copy during another case concerning the same land in May 1945. The ruling highlighted that the case had been preserved in part due to procedural missteps that the petitioner failed to address promptly.
Power to Deny Motion
The court further opined that the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction and did not exceed his authority when denying the motion to set aside the 1944 judgment. If there was an error in the judgment, the proper recourse would be to appeal, rather than seek certiorari. The reasoning maintained that the court’s discretion was exercised in alignment with the law.
Validity of Joint Judgment
The petitioner’s assertion that the November 18, 1944 judgment was null and void ab initio was found to lack merit. The court pointed out the inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims regarding the trial and the evidence presented. The judgment outlined details showing that both cases were indeed heard jointly. The court noted
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-1283)
Case Citation
- 79 Phil. 243
- G.R. No. L-1283
- Date of Decision: September 16, 1947
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Andres Rios
- Respondents: Anacleto Ros (in substitution for the deceased Saturnino Ros) and Hermogenes Caluag, Judge of First Instance of Albay
Background of the Case
- The case arises from a petition for certiorari against the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay.
- The petitioner claims the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in two instances:
- Denial of the motion for relief based on excusable neglect (Order dated November 4, 1946).
- Denial of the motion to set aside a judgment rendered on November 18, 1944 (Order dated November 27, 1946).
Legal Issues Presented
- First Cause of Action:
- The denial of the motion for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is argued to be a final decision, making certiorari not applicable.
- Petitioner failed to show that his earlier neglect in filing an appeal was excusable.
- Second Cause of Action:
- The contention that the judgment of November 18, 1944, is a nullity due to lack of evidence presented in the previous cases.
Court's Findings and Reasoning
First Cause of Action:
- The court held that the order denying the motion for relief was final and appealable.
- The petitioner was aware of the judgment well before his motion was filed, und