Cerezo v. Tuazon

Facts:

A Country Bus Lines passenger bus collided with a tricycle along Captain M. Palo Street, Sta. Ines, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Tricycle driver Tuazon filed a complaint for damages against Mrs. Cerezo, as owner of the bus line, her husband Atty. Cerezo, and bus driver Foronda.

The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the incident, Tuazon was in his proper lane when Foronda operated the vehicle in a negligent, careless, and imprudent manner without due regard to traffic rules and regulations, there being a Slow Down sign near the scene of the incident, resulted to severe damage to the tricycle and serious physical injuries to plaintiff thus making him unable to walk and becoming disabled, with his thumb and middle finger on the left hand being cut.

Tuazon filed a motion to litigate as a pauper. Subsequently, the trial court issued summons against Cerezo spouses at the Makati address stated in the complaint. However, the summons was returned unserved as the Cerezo spouses no longer held office nor resided in Makati. The trial court issued alias summons against the Cerezo spouses at their address in Barangay Sta. Maria, Camiling, Tarlac. The alias summons and a copy of the complaint were finally served at the office of Atty. Cerezo, who was then working as Tarlac Provincial Prosecutor. Atty. Cerezo reacted angrily on learning of the service of summons upon his person. Atty. Cerezo allegedly told Sheriff William Canlas: Punyeta, ano ang gusto mong mangyari? Gusto mong hindi ka makalabas ng buhay dito? Teritoryo ko ito. Wala ka sa teritoryo mo.

The records show that the Cerezo spouses participated in the proceedings before the trial court. The Cerezo spouses filed a comment with motion for bill of particulars and a reply to opposition to comment with the motion. The trial court issued an order directing the Cerezo spouses to file a comment to the opposition to the bill of particulars. Atty. Valera appeared on behalf of the Cerezo spouses. Atty. Valera filed an urgent ex-parte motion praying for the resolution of Tuazons motion to litigate as a pauper and for the issuance of new summons on the Cerezo spouses to satisfy proper service in accordance with the Rules of Court.

The Court is satisfied from the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff that he is entitled to prosecute his complaint in this case as a pauper under existing rules.

On the other hand, the Court denies the prayer in the Appearance and Urgent Ex-Parte Motion requiring new summons to be served to the defendants. The Court is of the opinion that any infirmity in the service of the summons to the defendant before plaintiff was allowed to prosecute his complaint in this case as a pauper has been cured by this Order.

Cerezo spouses filed an urgent ex-parte motion for reconsideration but was denied.

The trial court issued an order directing the Cerezo spouses to file their answer within fifteen days from receipt of the order but the Cerezo spouses did not file an answer. Tuazon filed a motion to declare the Cerezo spouses in default which then the Court declared that the spouses were in default.

The trial court ruled in Tuazons favor. The trial court made no pronouncement on Forondas liability because there was no service of summons on him. The trial court held Mrs. Cerezo solely liable for the damages sustained by Tuazon arising from the negligence of Mrs. Cerezos employee, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

Mrs. Cerezo filed before the trial court a petition for relief from judgment on the grounds of fraud, mistake or excusable negligence. Testifying before the trial court, both Mrs. Cerezo and Atty. Valera denied receipt of notices of hearings and of orders of the court. Atty. Valera claimed that he was able to read the decision of the trial court only after Mrs. Cerezo sent him a copy. The Court denied the petition.

The Cerezo spouses subsequently filed before CA a petition for certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65. The petition questioned whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case considering there was no service of summons on Foronda, whom the Cerezo spouses claimed was an indispensable party. CA denied the petition and the MR.

The Cerezo spouses filed before the SC a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 but was denied.

Cerezo spouses filed before the CA a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 with prayer for restraining order. Atty. Valera and Atty. Daga represented Mrs. Cerezo in the petition which the CA denied.

CA also denied the spouses’ MR.

Issue:

Whether or not Mrs. Cerezo may avail the remedy of annulment

Held:

Mrs. Cerezos counsels failed to avail of the proper remedies. It is either by sheer ignorance or by malicious manipulation of legal technicalities that they have managed to delay the disposition of the present case, to the detriment of pauper litigant Tuazon.

Clearly, Mrs. Cerezo had every opportunity to avail of these remedies within the reglementary periods provided under the Rules of Court. However, Mrs. Cerezo opted to file a petition for relief from judgment, which is available only in exceptional cases. A petition for relief from judgment should be filed within the reglementary period of 60 days from knowledge of judgment and six months from entry of judgment, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Tuason v. Court of Appeals explained the nature of a petition for relief from judgment:

When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition. Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which has been lost thru inexcusable negligence.

Evidently, there was no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that prevented Mrs. Cerezo from filing an appeal, a motion for new trial or a petition for certiorari. It was error for her to avail of a petition for relief from judgment.

Mrs. Cerezo insists that lack of jurisdiction, not extrinsic fraud, was her ground for filing the petition for annulment of judgment. However, a party may avail of the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 only if the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the party. Mrs. Cerezo could have availed of a new trial or appeal but through her own fault she erroneously availed of the remedy of a petition for relief, which was denied with finality. Thus, Mrs. Cerezo may no longer avail of the remedy of annulment.