G.R.No.199283.June9,2014.

*
JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME,
represented by his attorneysinfact and acting in their personal
capacities, RODOLFO and RUBY BARTOLOME, petitioners, vs.
SPOUSESJESUSD.MORALESandCAROLINAN.MORALES,
respondents.

Remedial Law Civil Procedure Judgments Relief from Judgments

The double period required under Section 3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional and
should be strictly complied with. A petition for relief from judgment filed
beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright.Rule 38, Section 3
ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureisclearthatthe60dayperiodmustbe
counted after petitioner learns of the judgment or final order. The period
countedfromthefinality

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

481

ofjudgmentorfinalorderisthesixmonthperiod.Section3,Rule38ofthe
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states: Sec. 3. Time for filing petition
contentsandverification.Apetitionprovidedforineitherofthepreceding
sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after
petitionerlearnsofthejudgment,finalorder,orotherproceedingtobe
set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or
final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken and must be
accompanied with affidavits, showing the fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence relied upon and the facts constituting the petitioners
good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.
(Emphasissupplied)ThedoubleperiodrequiredunderSection3,Rule38is
jurisdictionalandshouldbestrictlycompliedwith.Apetitionforrelieffrom
judgmentfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiodisdismissedoutright.Thisis
because a petition for relief from judgment is an exception to the public
policyofimmutabilityoffinaljudgments.
SameSameSameSameUnderSection1,Rule38ofthe1997Rules
of Civil Procedure, a petition for relief from judgment may be filed on the
groundoffraud,accident,mistake,orexcusablenegligence.UnderSection
1, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for relief from
judgment may be filed on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusablenegligence:Section1.Petitionforrelieffromjudgment,order,or
otherproceedings. When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other
proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such
courtandinthesamecaseprayingthatthejudgment,orderorproceedingbe
set aside. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is
allowedonlyinexceptionalcases.Itisnotavailableifotherremediesexist,
suchasamotionfornewtrialorappeal.
Same Same Same Same To set aside a judgment through a petition
for relief, the negligence must be so gross that ordinary diligence and
prudence could not have guarded against.To set aside a judgment
through a petition for relief, the negligence must be so gross that ordinary
diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. This is to prevent
partiesfromreviv[ing]therighttoappeal[already]lostthroughinexcusable
negligence. Petitioners argue that their former counsels failure to file a
noticeofappeal

482

within the reglementary period was a mistake and an excusable negligence

dueto[theirformercounsels]age.Thisargumentstereotypesanddemeans
seniorcitizens.Itasksthiscourttoassumethatapersonwithadvancedage
ispronetoincompetence.
Same Special Civil Actions Certiorari Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration is required before a petition for certiorari is
filed to grant the court which rendered the assailed judgment or order an
opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the
reexamination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.In
MetroTransitOrganization,Inc.v.PIGLASNFWUKMU,551SCRA326
(2008),thiscourtruledthatamotionforreconsiderationistheplain,speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law alluded to in Section 1,
Rule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.Amotionforreconsideration
isrequiredbeforeapetitionforcertiorariisfiledtogrant[thecourtwhich
rendered the assailed judgment or order] an opportunity . . . to correct any
actual or perceived error attributed to it by the reexamination of the legal
andfactualcircumstancesofthecase.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorarioftheresolutionsoftheCourtof
Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
RomnielL.Macapagalforpetitioners.
VirgilioM.Pabloforrespondents.

LEONEN,J.:
Apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentisanequitablereliefgranted
only under exceptional circumstances.[1] To set aside a judgment
throughapetitionforrelief,partiesmustfilethepetitionwithinsixty
(60) days from notice of the judgment and within six (6) months
afterthejudgmentorfinalorder

_______________
[1]InsularLifeSavingsandTrustCompanyv.SpousesRunes,479Phil.995,1006
436SCRA317,323(2004)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision].

483

wasenteredotherwise,thepetitionshallbedismissedoutright.
If the petition for relief is filed on the ground of excusable
negligence of counsel, parties must show that their counsels
negligence could not have been prevented using ordinary diligence
and prudence.[2] The mere allegation that there is excusable
negligencesimplybecausecounselwas80yearsoldisaprejudicial
slur to senior citizens. It is based on an unwarranted stereotype of
people in their advanced years. It is as empty as the bigotry that
supportsit.
This is a petition[3] for review on certiorari of the Court of
Appeals resolutions dated July 27, 2011[4] and November 10,
2011[5] in C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 120251. The Court of Appeals
dismissed petitioners Juliet Vitug Madarang, Romeo Bartolome,
Rodolfo Bartolome, and Ruby Anne Bartolomes[6] petition for
certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the
order[7]denyingtheirpetitionforrelieffromjudgment.
The facts as established by the pleadings of the parties are as
follows:
OnJanuary9,2001,SpousesJesusD.MoralesandCarolinaN.
MoralesfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofQuezon

_______________
[2]Guevarrav.SpousesBautista,593Phil.20,26572SCRA375,381(2008)[Per
J.Nachura,ThirdDivision].
[3]Rollo,pp.1727.
[4] Id., at pp. 3235. This resolution was penned by Associate Justice Celia C.
LibreaLeagogowithAssociateJusticesRemediosA.SalazarFernandoandMichael
P.Elbinias,concurring.
[5]Id.,atpp.3740.
[6] Romeo Bartolome is represented by Rodolfo Bartolome and Ruby Anne
BartolomeasevidencedbytheGeneralPowerofAttorneydatedDecember11,1997,
Rollo,pp.6364.
[7]ThisorderwasissuedbytheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch222,QuezonCity.

484

Cityacomplaint[8]forjudicialforeclosureofahouseandlotlocated
inBagoBantay,QuezonCity.
 The Spouses Morales alleged that on March 23, 1993, Spouses
NicanorandLucianaBartolomeloanedP500,000.00fromthem.The
SpousesBartolomeagreedtopaywithintwomonthswithinterestof
five percent (5%) per month. To secure their loan, the Spouses
Bartolome mortgaged[9] the Bago Bantay property to the Spouses
Morales.
TheperiodtopaylapsedwithouttheSpousesBartolomehaving
paidtheirloan.Afterdemand,theSpousesBartolomeonlypaidpart
oftheloanedamount.
In the meantime, the Spouses Bartolome died. The Spouses
Morales,thus,filedacomplaintforjudicialforeclosureoftheBago
Bantay property against Juliet Vitug Madarang, Romeo Bartolome,
andtheSpousesRodolfoandRubyAnneBartolome.
The Spouses Morales sued Madarang as the latter allegedly
represented herself as Lita Bartolome and convinced the Spouses
Morales to lend money to the Spouses Bartolome.[10] Romeo and
RodolfoBartolomeweresuedintheircapacitiesaslegitimateheirs
of the Spouses Bartolome. Ruby Anne Bartolome is Rodolfo
Bartolomeswife.
In their answer,[11] defendants assailed the authenticity of the
deed of real estate mortgage covering the Bago Bantay property,
specifically, the Spouses Bartolomes signatures on the instrument.
Theyaddedthatthecomplaintwasalreadybarredsinceithadbeen
dismissedinanotherbranchoftheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezon
Cityforfailuretocomplywithanorderofthetrialcourt.

_______________
[8]Rollo,pp.5862.
[9]Id.,atpp.6567.
[10]Id.,atp.77.
[11]Id.,atpp.6870.

485

In its decision[12] dated December 22, 2009, the trial court

ordered defendants to pay the Spouses Morales P500,000.00 plus
7%interestpermonthandcostsofsuitwithin90daysbutnotmore
than120daysfromentryofjudgment.Shoulddefendantsfailtopay,
the Bago Bantay property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy
thejudgment.
Defendants received a copy of the trial courts decision on
January29,2010.
On February 8, 2010, defendants filed their motion for
reconsideration of the trial courts decision. They amended their
motion for reconsideration and filed a request for a Philippine
National Police handwriting expert to examine the authenticity of
theSpousesBartolomesallegedsignaturesonthedeedofrealestate
mortgage.
 According to the trial court, the motion for reconsideration and
its amendment were pro forma as defendants failed to specify the
findingsandconclusionsinthedecisionthatwerenotsupportedby
theevidenceorcontrarytolaw.
As to the request for a handwriting expert, the trial court ruled
thatthereasonsgiventherein[were]notwelltaken.[13]
Thus,initsorder[14] dated May 25, 2010, the trial court denied
themotionforreconsideration,itsamendment,andtherequestfora
handwritingexpert.
Defendants received a copy of the May 25, 2010 order on June
24,2010.
On August 11, 2010, defendants filed a notice of appeal. In its
order[15]datedAugust13,2010,thetrialcourtdeniedduecoursethe
noticeofappealforhavingbeenfiledoutoftime.Accordingtothe
trialcourt,defendants,throughtheircoun

_______________
[12]Id.,atpp.7782.ThisdecisionwaspennedbyPresidingJudgeEdgarDalmacio
Santos.
[13]Id.,atp.83.
[14]Id.
[15]Id.,atp.85.

486

sel, Atty. Arturo F. Tugonon, received a copy of the order denying

themotionforreconsiderationonJune24,2010.Thisisevidenced
by the registry return receipt on file with the court. Consequently,
theyhad15daysfromJune24,2010,oruntilJuly9,2010,toappeal
thetrialcourtsdecision.However,theyfiledtheirnoticeofappeal
only on August 11, 2010, which was beyond the 15day period to
appeal.
On September 24, 2010, defendants filed a petition for relief
from judgment,[16] blaming their 80yearold lawyer who failed to
filethenoticeofappealwithinthereglementaryperiod.Theyargued
thatAtty.Tugononsfailuretoappealwithinthereglementaryperiod
was a mistake and an excusable negligence due to their former
lawyersoldage:

15.UndersignedPetitionerscounselisalreadyeighty(80)yearsofage
and the lapses and failure of their counsel to take appropriate steps
immediately for the protection of his client is a mistake and an excusable
negligence due to the latters age and should not be attributable to
undersigneddefendants.[17]

In its order[18] dated April 27, 2011, the trial court denied the
petition for relief from judgment. The trial court held that the
petitionforreliefwasfiledbeyond60daysfromthefinalityofthe
trial courts decision, contrary to Section 3, Rule 38 of the 1997
RulesofCivilProcedure.
On July 13, 2011, Madarang, Romeo, and Rodolfo and Ruby
AnneBartolomefiledthepetitionforcertiorari[19]withtheCourtof
Appeals.Initsresolution[20]datedJuly27,2011,theappellatecourt
denied outright the petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals
foundthatpetitionersdidnotfileamotion

_______________
[16]Id.,atpp.8692.
[17]Id.,atp.89.
[18]Id.,atp.57.
[19]Id.,atpp.4156.
[20]Id.,atpp.3235.

487

forreconsiderationoftheorderdenyingthepetitionforrelieffrom
judgment,aprerequisiteforfilingapetitionforcertiorari.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration that the Court of
Appealsdeniedinitsresolution[21]datedNovember10,2011.
Petitionersfiledthepetition[22]forreviewoncertiorariwiththis
court. They argue that they need not file a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying their petition for relief from
judgmentbecausethequestionstheyraisedinthepetitionforrelief
were pure questions of law. They cite Progressive Development
Corporation,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals[23]asauthority.
Petitionersaddthatthetrialcourterredindenyingtheirnoticeof
appeal. They personally received a copy of the decision only on
August11,2011.Theyarguethattheperiodtofileonappealmust
be counted from August 11, 2011, not on the day their ailing
counsel[24]receivedacopyofthedecision.
Acomment[25]wasfiledonthepetitionforreviewoncertiorari
byrespondentsSpousesMorales.Theyarguethatthetrialcourtdid
noterrindeclaringproformapetitionersmotionforreconsideration
ofthetrialcourtsdecision.
Respondents contend that the Court of Appeals did not err in
denying the petition for certiorari since petitioners failed to file a
motion for reconsideration of the order denying their petition for
relieffromjudgment.
Theissuesforourresolutionarethefollowing:

_______________
[21]Id.,atpp.3740.
[22]Id.,atpp.1727.
[23] 361 Phil. 566, 576 301 SCRA 637, 647 (1999) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second
Division].
 [24]Rollo,p.23.
[25]Id.,atpp.100111.

488

I.Whether the failure of petitioners former counsel to file the

notice of appeal within the reglementary period is excusable
negligenceand
II.Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright
petitioners petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying the petition for relief from
judgment.
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
I
Apetitionforrelieffromjudg
mentmustbefiledwithin60days
afterpetitionerlearnsofthe
judgment,finalorder,orproceed
ingandwithinsix(6)monthsfrom
entryofjudgmentorfinalorder

This court agrees that the petition for relief from judgment was
filedoutoftime.However,thetrialcourterredincountingthe60
dayperiodtofileapetitionforrelieffromthedateoffinalityofthe
trialcourtsdecision.Rule38,Section3ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedure is clear that the 60day period must be counted after
petitionerlearnsofthejudgmentorfinalorder.Theperiodcounted
fromthefinalityofjudgmentorfinalorderisthesixmonthperiod.
Section3,Rule38ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurestates:

Sec.3.Time for filing petition contents and verification.A petition

providedforineitheroftheprecedingsectionsofthisRulemustbeverified,
filedwithinsixty(60)daysafterpetitionerlearnsofthejudgment,final
order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6)
months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such
proceeding was taken and must be accompanied with affidavits, showing
thefraud,accident,mistakeorexcus

489

able negligence relied upon and the facts constituting the petitioners good
and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. (Emphasis
supplied)

The double period required under Section 3, Rule 38 is

jurisdictionalandshouldbestrictlycompliedwith.[26]Apetitionfor
relief from judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is
dismissed outright. This is because a petition for relief from
judgment is an exception to the public policy of immutability of
finaljudgments.[27]
In Gesulgon v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] the
Labor Arbiter ordered Mariscor Corporation to reinstate Edwin
Gesulgon as chief cook on board one of its vessels. Mariscor
CorporationhadnoticeofthedecisiononMarch27,1987,butitdid
not appeal the Labor Arbiters decision. Since decisions of Labor
Arbitersbecomefinal10calendardaysfromreceiptofthedecision,
thedecisionbecamefinalonApril6,1987.
OnFebruary28,1989,MariscorCorporationfiledamotiontoset
asidejudgmentwiththeNationalLaborRelationsCommission.The
Commission treated the motion as a petition for relief from
judgment and granted the petition for relief from judgment. It
remandedthecasetotheLaborArbiterforfurtherproceedings.
Thiscourtsetasidetheordergrantingthepetitionforrelieffrom
judgment for having been filed beyond the double period required
underSection3,Rule38ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.This
courtexplained:

_______________
[26]Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals,557 Phil. 241, 248 530 SCRA 468, 474
(2007)[PerJ.Garcia,FirstDivision].
[27]Gesulgonv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.90349,March5,
1993, 219 SCRA 561, 567568 [Per J. Feliciano, Third Division], citing Turqueza v.
Hernando,186Phil.33397SCRA483(1980)[PerJ.Teehankee,FirstDivision].
[28] G.R. No. 90349, March 5, 1993, 219 SCRA 561 [Per J. Feliciano, Third
Division].

490

A party filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply
withtwo(2)reglementaryperiods:(a)thepetitionmustbefiledwithinsixty
(60)daysfromknowledgeofthejudgment,orderorotherproceedingtobe
setasideand(b)withinafixedperiodofsix(6)monthsfromentryofsuch
judgment,orderorotherproceeding.Strictcompliancewiththeseperiodsis
required because provision for a petition for relief from judgment is a final
actofliberalityonthepartoftheState,whichremedycannotbeallowedto
erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order or
proceedingmust,atsomedefinitetime,attainfinalityinorderatlasttoput
anendtolitigation.InTurquezav.Hernando,thisCourtstressedoncemore
that:
. . . the doctrine of finality of judgments is
grounded on fundamental considerations of public
policyandsoundpracticethatattheriskofoccasional
error, the judgments of courts must become final at
some definite date fixed by law. The law gives an
exceptionorlastchanceofatimelypetitionforrelief
fromjudgmentwithinthereglementaryperiod(within
 60 days from knowledge and 6 months from entry of
judgment) under Rule 38, supra, but such grave
periodmustbetakenasabsolutelyfixed,inextendible,
never interrupted and cannot be subjected to any
condition or contingency. Because the period fixed is
itself devised to meet a condition or contingency
(fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect), the
equitable remedy is an act of grace, as it were,
designed to give the aggrieved party another and last
chanceandfailuretoavailofsuchlastchancewithin
thegraceperiodfixedbythestatuteorRulesofCourt
isfatal....[29](Emphasisintheoriginal)

_______________

[29]Id.,atpp.567568.

491

In Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals and Voluntad,[30] the

Regional Trial Court of Bulacan rendered a decision against the
SpousesReyespredecessorsininterest.Thedecisionbecamefinal
onDecember8,1995.TheSpousesReyeshadnoticeofthedecision
on May 30, 1997 when they received a Court of Appeals order
directing them to comment on the petition for certiorari filed by
respondents heirs of Voluntad. Attached to the Court of Appeals
orderwasacopyofthetrialcourtsdecision.
On June 21, 2000, the Spouses Reyes filed a petition for relief
from judgment against the Regional Trial Court of Bulacans
decision.Thiscourtaffirmedthedismissalofthepetitionforrelief
fromjudgmentforhavingbeenfiledoutoftimeandsaid:

Itshouldbenotedthatthe60dayperiodfromknowledgeofthedecision,
andthe6monthperiodfromentryofjudgment,arebothinextendible and
uninterruptible.Wehavealsotimeandagainheldthatbecauserelieffroma
final and executory judgment is really more of an exception than a rule due
to its equitable character and nature, strict compliance with these periods,
which are definitely jurisdictional, must always be observed.[31] (Emphasis
intheoriginal)

Inthiscase,petitioners,throughcounsel,receivedacopyofthe
trial courts decision on January 29, 2010. They filed a motion for
reconsideration and an amended motion for reconsideration, which
similarlyallegedthefollowing:

The defendants, by the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court,

respectfullyallege:

_______________
 [30]557Phil.241530SCRA468(2007)[PerJ.Garcia,FirstDivision].
[31]Id.,atp.248p.475.

492

1.ThatonJanuary29,2010,theyreceivedthedecisioninthe
aboveentitledcaserenderedbythisHonorableCourt,dated
December22,2009
2. That with due respect to the Honorable Court, the decision is
contrarytolaw&tothedefendants[]evidencepresentedincourt.
Hence,thisurgentmotion.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court,
that the decision sought to be reversed be reconsidered and another one be
renderedinfavorofthedefendants.[32]

Although petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and

amendedmotionforreconsideration,thesemotionswerepro forma
for not specifying the findings or conclusions in the decision that
were not supported by the evidence or contrary to law.[33] Their
motionforreconsiderationdidnottollthe15dayperiodtoappeal.
[34]
Petitioners cannot argue that the period to appeal should be
counted from August 11, 2011, the day petitioners personally
receivedacopyofthetrialcourtsdecision.Noticeofjudgmenton
the counsel of record is notice to the client.[35] Since petitioners
counsel received a copy of the decision on January 29, 2010, the
periodtoappealshallbecountedfromthatdate.
Thus,thedecisionbecamefinal15daysafterJanuary29,2010,
or on February 13, 2010. Petitioners had six (6) months from
February 13, 2010, or until August 12, 2010, to file a petition for
relieffromjudgment.
Sincepetitionersfiledtheirpetitionforrelieffromjudgmenton
September24,2010,thepetitionforrelieffrom

_______________
[32]Rollo,pp.107108.
[33]RC,Rule37,Sec.2.
[34]Id.
[35]Torresv.ChinaBankingCorporation,G.R.No.165408,January15,2010,610
SCRA134,149[PerJ.Peralta,ThirdDivision].

493

judgmentwasfiledbeyondsix(6)monthsfromfinalityofjudgment.
The trial court should have denied the petition for relief from
judgmentonthisground.
II
Failureofpetitionersformer
counseltofilethenoticeofappeal
withinthereglementaryperiodis
notexcusablenegligence
Even if we assume that petitioners filed their petition for relief
fromjudgmentwithinthereglementaryperiod,petitionersfailedto
prove that their former counsels failure to file a timely notice of
appealwasduetoamistakeorexcusablenegligence.
UnderSection1,Rule38ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,a
petition for relief from judgment may be filed on the ground of
fraud,accident,mistake,orexcusablenegligence:

Section1.Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other

proceedings.
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
thereaftertakenagainstapartyinanycourtthroughfraud,accident,mistake,
orexcusablenegligence,hemayfileapetitioninsuchcourtandinthesame
caseprayingthatthejudgment,orderorproceedingbesetaside.

Apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentisanequitableremedyandis
allowedonlyinexceptionalcases.[36]Itisnotavailableif

_______________
[36]InsularLifeSavingsandTrustCompanyv.SpousesRunes,479Phil.995,1006
436SCRA317,323(2004)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision].

494

otherremediesexist,suchasamotionfornewtrialorappeal.[37]
To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, the
negligence must be so gross that ordinary diligence and prudence
couldnothaveguardedagainst.[38]Thisistopreventpartiesfrom
reviv[ing] the right to appeal [already] lost through inexcusable
negligence.[39]
Petitioners argue that their former counsels failure to file a
noticeofappealwithinthereglementaryperiodwasamistakeand
an excusable negligence due to [their former counsels] age.[40]
Thisargumentstereotypesanddemeansseniorcitizens.Itasksthis
court to assume that a person with advanced age is prone to
incompetence.Thiscannotbedone.
There is also no showing that the negligence could have been
prevented through ordinary diligence and prudence. As such,
petitionersareboundbytheircounselsnegligence.[41]
Petitioners had until July 9, 2010 to file a notice of appeal,
considering that their former counsel received a copy of the order
denyingtheirmotionforreconsiderationofthetrialcourtsdecision
on June 24, 2010.[42] Since petitioners filed their notice of appeal
only on August 11, 2010,[43] the trial court correctly denied the
noticeofappealforhavingbeenfiledoutoftime.

_______________
[37]Id.
[38] Guevarra v. Bautista, 593 Phil. 20, 26 572 SCRA 375, 381 (2008) [Per J.
Nachura,ThirdDivision].
[39]Id.,atp.27p.382.
[40]Rollo,p.22.
[41]Supranote38.
[42]Rollo,p.85.
[43]Id.,atp.84.

495

III
TheCourtofAppealscorrectlydenied
thepetitionforcertiorariforpetition
ersfailuretofileamotionforrecon
siderationoftheorderdenyingthe
petitionforrelieffromjudgment
InitsresolutiondatedJuly27,2011,theCourtofAppealsdenied
petitioners petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying the petition for relief from
judgment.Weagreewiththeappellatecourt.
Section1,Rule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurerequires
that no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law is available to a party before a petition for
certiorariisfiled.Thissectionprovides:

Section1.Petitionforcertiorari.
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petitioninthepropercourt,allegingthefactswithcertaintyandprayingthat
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justicemayrequire.(Emphasissupplied)

InMetroTransitOrganization,Inc.v.PIGLASNFWUKMU,[44]
thiscourtruledthatamotionforreconsiderationistheplain,speedy,
andadequateremedyintheordinary

_______________
[44]574Phil.481551SCRA326(2008)[PerJ.ChicoNazario,ThirdDivision].

496
courseoflawalludedtoinSection1,Rule65ofthe1997Rulesof
CivilProcedure.[45]Amotionforreconsiderationisrequiredbefore
apetitionforcertiorariisfiledtogrant[thecourtwhichrendered
the assailed judgment or order] an opportunity . . . to correct any
actualorperceivederrorattributedtoitbythereexaminationofthe
legalandfactualcircumstancesofthecase.[46]
Inthiscase,amotionforreconsiderationoftheorderdenyingthe
petitionforrelieffromjudgmentistheplain,speedy,andadequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioners failed to avail
themselves of this remedy. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly
dismissedpetitionerspetitionforcertiorari.
Contrary to petitioners claim, the questions they raised in their
petition for relief from judgment were not pure questions of law.
TheyraisetheauthenticityoftheSpousesBartolomessignatureson
the deed of real estate mortgage and the allegedly excusable
negligenceoftheircounsel.Thesearequestionsoffactwhichputat
issue the truth of the facts alleged in the petition for relief from
judgment.[47] Petitioners cannot cite Progressive Development
Corporation,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals[48]wherethiscourtheldthat
[t]hefilingofthemotionforreconsiderationbeforeavailingofthe
remedy of certiorari is not sine qua non when the issues raised is
onepurelyoflaw.[49]
All told, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in
denyingpetitionerspetitionforcertiorari.TheRegional

_______________
[45]Id.,atp.491p.336.
[46]Id.
[47]Bentulanv.BentulanMercado,487Phil.364,376446SCRA150,158(2004)
[PerJ.ChicoNazario,SecondDivision],citingRamos,etal.v.PepsiColaBottlingCo.
oftheP.I.,etal.,125Phil.70119SCRA289(1967)[PerJ.Bengzon,J.P.,EnBanc].
[48]361Phil.566301SCRA637(1999)[PerJ.Bellosillo,SecondDivision].
[49]Id.,atp.576p.647.

497

Trial Courts decision dated December 22, 2009 is final and

executory.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED. The Court of Appeals resolutions dated July 27, 2011
and November 10, 2011 in C.A.G.R. S.P. No. 120251 are
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr.** and

Mendoza,JJ.,concur.
 Petitiondenied,resolutionsaffirmed.

Notes.Relieffromjudgmentisthusavailableonlyagainstthe
decision of an adjudicator, to be filed before the adjudicator, when
thepartyseekingithasnootheradequateremedyavailabletohimin
the ordinary course of law. (Mercado vs. Mercado, 582 SCRA 11
[2009])
Apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentmustbefiledwithin60days
fromnoticeofsuchjudgmentorwithinsixmonthsfromtheentryof
judgment.(AFPMutualBenefitAssociation,Inc.vs.RegionalTrial
Court,MarikinaCity,Branch193,642SCRA720[2011])
o0o

_______________

**DesignatedasactingmemberperSpecialOrderNo.1691datedMay22,2014in
viewofthevacancyintheThirdDivision.

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.