UP Law BGC Eve 2024 Samonte v.

SF Naguiat
Civil Procedure Post-Judgment Remedies  Relief from judgments, 2009 Peralta
orders and other proceedings (Rule 38)
SUMMARY DOCTRINE
When the RTC ruled in favor of respondent SF Naguiat, Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a
petitioner Samonte failed to appeal or file MR. He instead filed remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision
petition for relied of judgement without assertion that the or order is entered into through fraud, accident, mistake or
decision was entered through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. The relief provided for is of equitable
excusable negligence. He also failed to comply with the character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is
requirements of verification and certification. SC ruled that the no other available or adequate remedy. When a party has
filing of the petition was improper. another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion
for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the lower
court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking the
appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief provided in Rule 38.

FACTS

 Petitoner Samonte is the President of SB Traders engaged in the business of motor oils and lubricants. It purchases Mobil
products on credit basis from SF Naguiat with an agreement to pay within 60 days from date of delivery.
 RTC Malolos
o SF Naguiat filed complaint for collection of sum of money against SB Traders and Samonte since SB incurred an
obligation to pay. It also averred that SB is merely an alter ego of Samonte.
o Samonte failed to appear at the pre-trial conference.
o RTC ruled in favor of SF ordering SB and Samonte to pay solidarily.
o Samonte failed to appeal the decision.
o Samonte filed a petition for relief from judgment on the ground that
 RTC made serious and prejudicial mistakes in appreciating the evidence
 He cannot be held liable solidarily with SB
o RTC denied the petition.
o RTC also denied the MR on the grounds that
 The MR failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of verification and certification.
 CA
o Samonte filed petition for certiorari
o CA dismissed the petition
 Decision became final and executory when he failed to appeal or file MR after the RTC decision.
 There was no assertion that the RTC decision was entered through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence.
 Petition was not accompanied with affidavit showing fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
 Samonte did not assail the proceedings but only the validity of the dispositive portion of the RTC decision
 Therefore, the petition was fatally flawed.
 SC
o Samonte files petition to SC

RATIO

W/N the filing of petition for relief of judgment was the proper remedy?

NO.

 Rule 38, Sec. 1 and 3 provide for requirements for a petition for relief of judgement.
 Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision
or order is entered into through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
 The relief provided for is of equitable character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where 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 lower court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such
motion or taking the appeal, he cannot avail himself of the relief provided in Rule 38.
 The rule is that 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 or a mistaken mode of procedure, otherwise the petition for relief will be
tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a
mistake in the mode of procedure by counsel.

Samonte alleged that the petition was filed on the ground that the RTC made serious and prejudicial mistakes in appreciating
the evidence presented:
 The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 pertains generally to mistake of fact, not of law. The word "mistake" which grants relief
from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the
trial. Such error may be corrected by means of an appeal.
 In this case
o The issues could have been raised in an MR.
o It can also be corrected by means of an appeal.
o Samonte never made any allegation in his petition for relief from judgment that the RTC decision was entered against
him through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The petition for relief did not also show any reason for
petitioner's failure to file an appeal after the receipt of the RTC decision which the CA correctly observed in its
 assailed decision.

Petitioner argues that the CA erred in finding that an affidavit of merit is an essential requirement in filing a petition for relief
from judgment and that without said affidavit the same would be denied:
 Rule 38, Sec. 3 requires that the petition must be accompanied with affidavits of merits showing the fraud, accident, mistake,
or excusable negligence relied upon by petitioner and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of
action or defense as the case maybe.
 A petition for relief without a separate affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts constituting petitioner's substantial cause of
action or defense, as the case may be, are alleged in a verified petition since the oath elevates the petition to the same
category as a separate affidavit.
 In this case:
o The petition was not even verified.

FALLO

Petition DENIED.