Republic of the
PhilippinesSUPREME COURTEN BANC
LEOPOLDO SALCEDO,
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. L-18480
January
31, 1963
-versus-
THE
HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS
AND
REMEDIOS V.
RODRIGUEZ,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I
O N
BARRERA,
J.:
This
is a Petition for
Review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the Petition
for Mandamus filed by Leopoldo Salcedo, to compel the Court of First
Instance
of Quezon to approve the record on appeal in Civil Case No. 42-G of
said
Court and nullify the writs of execution issued therein against him.
Insofar
as pertinent to the instant proceeding, the facts of the case are as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In January, 1956,
Remedios
Rodriguez filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon a complaint
against
Leopoldo Salcedo [Civ. Case No. 42-G], to compel recognition of her
child
named Ricardo Eulogio Rodriguez, allegedly begotten by defendant, for
support,
damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Corresponding summons appeared to
have been on July 25, 1956, served on defendant at his residence
through
his housemaid Nenita Baltazar, of legal age and sufficient discretion
to
understand the importance thereof. In view of his failure to file an
answer
within the reglementary period, defendant was declared in default on
September
4, 1956, and plaintiff was allowed to introduce her evidence.
On November 27, 1956,
the Court rendered judgment ordering defendant Salcedo to acknowledge
Ricardo
Eulogio Rodriguez as his illegitimate child; to give said child a
monthly
support of P200.00, computed from the date of the filing of the action
until he reaches the age of majority; to pay plaintiff Rodriguez moral
damages in the sum of P10,000.00, actual damages for P20,000.00,
exemplary
damages for P5,000.00, and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs.
On February 21, 1958,
the Court issued an alias writ of execution against defendant's
properties in Quezon City. Claiming to have learned of the Decision
against
him for the first time only when served with the writ of execution,
defendant
Salcedo filed on February 24, 1958 an urgent motion seeking to set
aside
the Decision and the corresponding Order of Execution. This motion was
set for hearing during which defendant Salcedo was allowed to testify
and
adduce evidence to support his allegations therein. On September 19,
1958,
the Court denied the motion, on the ground that it was filed out of
time
and for lack of supporting affidavit of merit. On October 24, the Court
denied the second motion for reconsideration of the default order filed
by defendant. No appeal has been taken from these orders of denial. On
January 22, 1959, a second alias writ of execution was issued by the
lower
Court.
Almost four [4] months
thereafter, or on May 4, 1959, Salcedo filed a Petition for Certiorari
in the Court of Appeals [CA-G.R. No. 24770-R] questioning the legality
of the service of summons in the case and, consequently, the
jurisdiction
of the lower Court to validly render judgment against him. Overruling
his
allegations, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision of November 19,
1959,
dismissed the petition and held that in view of the absence of evidence
to the contrary, service of summons on his housemaid is valid service
on
defendant. Instead of asking for the review of the Court of Appeals'
dismissal
of his petition, Salcedo filed with the trial Court for the first time
a notice of appeal from the Decision on the merits, and a motion for
extension
of time to file a record on appeal. The motion for extension of time
was
denied and the appeal ordered dismissed by the Court on January 14,
1960.
On January 26, 1960, the Court issued the third alias writ of
execution.
Salcedo then filed
a Petition for Mandamus in the Court of Appeals [CA-G.R. No. 27157-R]
to
compel approval by the lower Court of the record on appeal, obtaining a
writ of preliminary injunction therein to suspend execution of the
decision.
On May 20, 1961, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the
Petition for Mandamus, and holding that the trial court committed no
abuse
of discretion in issuing the order of execution complained of and in
denying
his petition for extension of time to file a record on appeal. It is
from
this order of dismissal that the instant petition for review has been
instituted.
The petition is without
merit. The question of the validity or sufficiency of the service of
the
summons on defendant, now petitioner Salcedo, on which he predicates
his
contention that the trial Court acquired no jurisdiction over his
person
and, therefore, the judgment against him was null and void, has already
been previously raised by him in his two motions for reconsideration
and
relief, seeking to set aside the judgment and explaining his failure to
appear and file his answer, which motions were denied by the trial
Court
on September 19, and October 24, both in 1958. As already stated, no
appeal
has been taken from any of these orders of denial, and they therefore
became
final. It is true that months later, or on May 4, 1959, petitioner
filed
a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, raising the same
question,
but again the petition was dismissed, the Court upholding the validity
of the summons. Again, no Petition for Review of this Order of the
Court
of Appeals has been filed, and the order of dismissal thus became
final.
In the face of these facts, the trial Court committed no error in
denying
petitioner's subsequent motion for time to present a record on appeal
from
the judgment rendered on the merit of the case and the orders of denial
of the motions for reconsideration, which judgment and orders have long
became final. As a consequence, neither did the Court of Appeals err in
denying Salcedo's Petition for Mandamus to compel the trial Court to
give
due course to his belated appeal.
WHEREFORE, the present
Petition to Review the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
27157-R is hereby dismissed and the judgment rendered therein affirmed.
The preliminary writ of injunction heretofore issued is dissolved.
Costs
against the petitioner.
Bengzon, C.J.,
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and
Regala, JJ., concur.
Labrador and
Makalintal,
JJ., did not take part. |