EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-17469. November 28, 1964.]
JUAN SORIANO, Petitioner, v. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, and ENGRACIA MEDENILLA, Respondents.
Luis N. de Leon for Petitioner.
Zosimo G. Orcine for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. COURTS; JURISDICTION ACQUIRED OVER DEPENDANT WHO FILES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGMENT. — Even if jurisdiction was not originally acquired by the court over the defendant due to allegedly defective service of summons, still when the latter filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default he is considered to have submitted to said court’s jurisdiction.
2. MOTIONS; DENIAL OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER DEFAULT JUDGMENT BINDING UPON FAILURE TO APPEAL THEREFROM. — The denial of a motion to reconsider a default judgment becomes binding on the party in default where no appeal was perfected within the 30 days immediately following notice. A second motion to reconsider filed thereafter comes too late because said order of denial has become final.
2. MOTIONS; DENIAL OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER DEFAULT JUDGMENT BINDING UPON FAILURE TO APPEAL THEREFROM. — The denial of a motion to reconsider a default judgment becomes binding on the party in default where no appeal was perfected within the 30 days immediately following notice. A second motion to reconsider filed thereafter comes too late because said order of denial has become final.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Application for a writ of certiorari to annul and set aside the proceedings in Civil Case No. 4534 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for lack of jurisdiction. Because the court below threatened to proceed against petitioner, Juan Soriano, for contempt of court, we issued a writ of preliminary injunction to hold the proceedings in abeyance.
The background of the case is as follows: Engracia Medenilla had filed action on 8 April 1959 against Juan Soriano and others to recover a half interest in a land in Tapul, Baao, Camarines Sur. Because of his failure to answer the complaint within the reglementary period, the Court of First Instance declared Soriano in default on 6 June 1959. The case for the plaintiff was subsequently heard, and her evidence received, and on the 19th November following the court rendered a partial decision for the plaintiff Medenilla, and against Juan Soriano, declaring plaintiff to be a half owner of the land in question; ordering him to vacate its northern half and deliver it to the plaintiff. Execution was issued in the following December.
Less than four months after the decision, on 14 March 1960, Juan Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him because he was never served with summons; that as he could not be contacted in his residence the summons had been served on 2 May 1959 on Rufina Soriano, a girl 19 years old, and dwelling about one kilometer away from Soriano’s residence; and she wrote Juan Soriano’s name in the summons, promising to deliver it to the movant, but subsequently did not do so because she forgot all about it. The motion was not sworn, but was supported by affidavits of Rufina Soriano and of the serving officer, Enrique Blasco. Movant prayed that the proceedings, therefore, should be annulled and set aside, and a new trial ordered.
This motion was denied by order of 19 March 1960.
On June 1960, Juan Soriano reiterated his previous motion through counsel, invoking Ang Lam v. Resillosa, 86 Phil. 447. But upon opposition by counsel for plaintiff Medenilla, the court of first instance once more denied Soriano’s motion by order of 21 July 1960, holding that the defect in the service of summons came under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and that the proper remedy was a petition to set aside the order of default. Soriano then brought the case to this Court by a petition for certiorari, which was given due course.
We find the appeal untenable. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court below originally did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioner Soriano, the latter certainly submitted to it when he filed his first motion for reconsideration and for annulment of previous proceedings on 14 March 1960. Therefore, the denial of that motion, by the order of 19 March 1960, was binding on petitioner Soriano. His counsel who was served copy of the order of denial on 25 March 1960 (see back of fol. 66, original record of case No. 4534), could have appealed from it. But as no appeal therefrom was perfected within the 30 days immediately following, the order denying reconsideration and annulment of the previous proceedings became final on 25 April 1960.
Soriano’s second motion of 30 June 1960 insisting on the allegations made in the first one, and which was also denied by the court, came too late to affect the order of 19 March 1960, because the second motion was filed long after the order had become final and executory. In fact, the court below had no choice but deny it.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari applied for is denied; and our preliminary injunction, issued on 3 October 1960, is hereby dissolved. Costs against petitioner Juan Soriano.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
The background of the case is as follows: Engracia Medenilla had filed action on 8 April 1959 against Juan Soriano and others to recover a half interest in a land in Tapul, Baao, Camarines Sur. Because of his failure to answer the complaint within the reglementary period, the Court of First Instance declared Soriano in default on 6 June 1959. The case for the plaintiff was subsequently heard, and her evidence received, and on the 19th November following the court rendered a partial decision for the plaintiff Medenilla, and against Juan Soriano, declaring plaintiff to be a half owner of the land in question; ordering him to vacate its northern half and deliver it to the plaintiff. Execution was issued in the following December.
Less than four months after the decision, on 14 March 1960, Juan Soriano filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the court never acquired jurisdiction over him because he was never served with summons; that as he could not be contacted in his residence the summons had been served on 2 May 1959 on Rufina Soriano, a girl 19 years old, and dwelling about one kilometer away from Soriano’s residence; and she wrote Juan Soriano’s name in the summons, promising to deliver it to the movant, but subsequently did not do so because she forgot all about it. The motion was not sworn, but was supported by affidavits of Rufina Soriano and of the serving officer, Enrique Blasco. Movant prayed that the proceedings, therefore, should be annulled and set aside, and a new trial ordered.
This motion was denied by order of 19 March 1960.
On June 1960, Juan Soriano reiterated his previous motion through counsel, invoking Ang Lam v. Resillosa, 86 Phil. 447. But upon opposition by counsel for plaintiff Medenilla, the court of first instance once more denied Soriano’s motion by order of 21 July 1960, holding that the defect in the service of summons came under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and that the proper remedy was a petition to set aside the order of default. Soriano then brought the case to this Court by a petition for certiorari, which was given due course.
We find the appeal untenable. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court below originally did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioner Soriano, the latter certainly submitted to it when he filed his first motion for reconsideration and for annulment of previous proceedings on 14 March 1960. Therefore, the denial of that motion, by the order of 19 March 1960, was binding on petitioner Soriano. His counsel who was served copy of the order of denial on 25 March 1960 (see back of fol. 66, original record of case No. 4534), could have appealed from it. But as no appeal therefrom was perfected within the 30 days immediately following, the order denying reconsideration and annulment of the previous proceedings became final on 25 April 1960.
Soriano’s second motion of 30 June 1960 insisting on the allegations made in the first one, and which was also denied by the court, came too late to affect the order of 19 March 1960, because the second motion was filed long after the order had become final and executory. In fact, the court below had no choice but deny it.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari applied for is denied; and our preliminary injunction, issued on 3 October 1960, is hereby dissolved. Costs against petitioner Juan Soriano.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
