ESCUETA AND BALOLOY V. LIM (REMEDIAL)

PRE-TRIAL is mandatory. The notices of pre-trial had been sent to both the Baloloys and their former counsel of record. Being served with notice, he is charges with the duty of notifying the party represented by him. He must see to it that his client receives such notice and attends the pre-trial. What the Baloloys and their former counsel have alleged instead in their motion is the belated receipt of the special power of attorney, not that they have not received the notice or been informed of the scheduled pre-trial. Not having raised the ground of lack of a special power of attorney in their motion, they are not deemed to have waived it. Certainly, they cannot raise it at this late stage of the proceedings. For lack of representation, Baloloy was properly declared in default.

Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court sates:

SEC 3. TIME FOR FILING PETITION; CONTENTS AND VERIFICATION - a petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this 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 mroe that 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 petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense as the cas may be.

There is no reason for the Baloloys to ignore the effects of the above rule. the 60-day period is reckoned from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment, or proceedings and not from the date he actually read the same.

Further, no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence exists in order that the PETITION FOR RELIEF may be granted.

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.

SPOUSES MESINA V. MEER (REMEDIAL)

After careful examination of the case, we resolve to deny the petition.

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence is present. Where the defendant has other available or adequate remedy such as a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse decision, he cannot avail himself of this remedy.

Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the PETITION FOR RELIEF must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the 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. Most importantly, it must be filed with the same court which rendered the decision.

As correctly pointed out by the CA, the petitioners' allegation of extrinsic fraud should have been brought at issue in the MTC. If they truly believe that the default of the spouses Mesina prejudices their rights, they should have questioned this from the very beginning. Yet, they chose to participate in the proceedings ans actively presented their defense. And their efforts were rewarded as the MTC rules in their favor.

When the respondent appealed the case to the RTC, they never raised this issue. Even after the RTC reversed the finding of the MTC, and the CA sustained this reversal, petitioners made no effort to bring this issue for consideration. The SC will not allow petitioners, in guise of equity, to benefit from their own negligence.