MERCURY DRUG V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Rule 38. Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings - 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 court and in the same case praying that that the judgment, order, or proceeding be set aside.

Section 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification - A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of the Rule must be verified, filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than 6 months after such judgment or final order was entered or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

A PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. 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.

In order for a petition for relief to be entertained by the court, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that he has faithfully and strictly complied with the provision of Rule 38. It is also incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the said petition was filed within the reglementary period specified in Section 3, Rule 38 (within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than 6 months from entry of judgment). and the rule is that the reglementary period is reckoned from the time the party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to party for purposes of Section 3 of Rule 38.

In the present case, the petition for relief, which was filed over 60 days from notice of their counsel, was filed out of time. The SC has consistently held that the failure of a party's counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence, which is not excusable. However, notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.

The case of People's Homesite is not squarely in point. In said case, we gave due course to a petition for relief from judgment despite the fact that it was filed out of time, the lawyer having failed to inform his clients of the scheduled hearing of the case which was heard in their absence. When judgment was rendered against them, their lawyer failed to take any steps to protect the interest of their clients. In giving due course to the petition for relief, this Court found that "there was something fishy with the actuations" of their lawyer which deprived the petitioners of their day in court. Consequently, we ruled that the client was denied due process and gave due course to their petition.