Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    Gomez V Montalban

    Uploaded by

    Niajhan Palattao
    1) The respondent obtained a loan from the petitioner but failed to pay it back despite demands, so the petitioner filed a case in trial court. 2) The respondent was declared in default for failing to file an answer, and the trial court ruled in the petitioner's favor. 3) The respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment claiming she was not properly served, but the Supreme Court denied it. The Court found the respondent did not prove any fraud, mistake, or excusable negligence that would justify relief from the judgment under the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gomez V Montalban

    Uploaded by

    Niajhan Palattao
    116 views2 pages
    1) The respondent obtained a loan from the petitioner but failed to pay it back despite demands, so the petitioner filed a case in trial court. 2) The respondent was declared in default for failing to file an answer, and the trial court ruled in the petitioner's favor. 3) The respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment claiming she was not properly served, but the Supreme Court denied it. The Court found the respondent did not prove any fraud, mistake, or excusable negligence that would justify relief from the judgment under the rules.

    Original Description:

    com rev

    Original Title

    Gomez v Montalban

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The respondent obtained a loan from the petitioner but failed to pay it back despite demands, so the petitioner filed a case in trial court. 2) The respondent was declared in default for failing to file an answer, and the trial court ruled in the petitioner's favor. 3) The respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment claiming she was not properly served, but the Supreme Court denied it. The Court found the respondent did not prove any fraud, mistake, or excusable negligence that would justify relief from the judgment under the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views2 pages

    Gomez V Montalban

    Uploaded by

    Niajhan Palattao
    1) The respondent obtained a loan from the petitioner but failed to pay it back despite demands, so the petitioner filed a case in trial court. 2) The respondent was declared in default for failing to file an answer, and the trial court ruled in the petitioner's favor. 3) The respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment claiming she was not properly served, but the Supreme Court denied it. The Court found the respondent did not prove any fraud, mistake, or excusable negligence that would justify relief from the judgment under the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gomez v Montalban notified; hence, her Petition for Relief was dismissed for her

    G.R. NO. 174414 March 14, 2008 apparent lack of interest to pursue the petition.
    Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
    FACTS: The Complaint stemmed from the loan obtained by dismissal of her Petition for Relief. The same was granted and
    the respondent from the petitioner. When the check became on June 20, 2006, the RTC granted respondent's Petition for
    due, respondent failed to pay the loan despite several demands. Relief from Judgment and set aside its Decision dated 4 May
    Thus, petitioner filed the Complaint with the RTC for a sum of 2004 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 
    money, damages and payment of attorney's fees against
    respondent. ISSUE:  Whether or not respondent's relief from judgment
    Summons was served, but despite her receipt thereof, is proper during the period for filing a motion for
    respondent failed to file her Answer. Consequently, she was reconsideration and appeal.
    declared in default and upon motion, petitioner was allowed to
    present evidence ex parte. RULING: NO. Based on respondent's allegations in her
    After considering the evidence presented by petitioner, Petition for Relief before the RTC, she had no cause of action
    the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. for relief from judgment.
    On 28 May 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Relief Under Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, the
    from Judgment alleging that there was no effective service of court may grant relief from judgment only "[w]hen a judgment
    summons upon her since there was no personal service of the or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken
    same. The summons was received by one Mrs. Alicia dela against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or
    Torre, who was not authorized to receive summons or other excusable negligence x x x."
    legal pleadings or documents on respondent's behalf. In her Petition for Relief from Judgment before the
    Respondent attributes her failure to file an Answer to fraud, RTC, respondent contended that judgment was entered against
    accident, mistake or excusable negligence. She claimed that her through "mistake or fraud," because she was not duly
    she had good and valid defenses against petitioner and that the served with summons as it was received by a Mrs. Alicia dela
    RTC had no jurisdiction as the principal amount being claimed Torre who was not authorized to receive summons or other
    by petitioner was only P40,000.00, an amount falling within legal processes on her behalf.
    the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). As used in Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court,
    After petitioner filed his Answer to the Petition for "mistake" refers to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to
    Relief from Judgment and respondent her Reply, the said the case. The word "mistake," which grants relief from
    Petition was set for hearing. judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a
    After several dates were set and called for hearing, judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial.
    respondent, thru counsel, failed to appear despite being duly Such errors may be corrected by means of an appeal. This does
    not exist in the case at bar, because respondent has in no wise
    been prevented from interposing an appeal.
    "Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or
    collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party
    from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or was
    used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the
    controversy. This is not present in the case at hand as
    respondent was not prevented from securing a fair trial and was
    given the opportunity to present her case.
    Lastly, negligence to be excusable must be one which
    ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded
    against. The negligence must be generally imputable to the
    party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on
    the client. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek
    administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask
    for the reversal of the court's ruling.

    You might also like