G.R. No. L-13804; February 29, 1960
PONCIANO PUNZALAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. NICOLAS PAPICA, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Sometime in December 1955, Domingo Sabordo, et al., filed a complaint for recovery of wage differentials and overtime pay against Ponciano Punzalan (Civil Case No. 111) in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bula, Camarines Sur. Summons was served on Punzalan in Manila on January 26, 1956, by leaving a copy with his nephew at his residence. Punzalan was in Cagayan at the time and only learned of the summons on February 9, 1956, the very day set for his appearance, answer, and presentation of evidence in the Bula court. On that same day, he immediately sent a telegraphic motion for postponement to the Justice of the Peace. The telegram was not received by the judge until after the hearing, and at the 2:00 p.m. hearing on February 9, Punzalan was declared in default. On February 17, 1956, Punzalan received a letter from the plaintiffs’ counsel informing him of the default judgment and proposing a compromise. Although not yet served a copy of the judgment, Punzalan filed a motion on February 24 to lift the default judgment and for a new trial, explaining his late knowledge of the summons and lack of time to attend. This motion was denied by the inferior court on March 5, 1956. The following day, March 6, Punzalan received a copy of the default judgment dated February 10, 1956. Instead of appealing the denial of his motion for new trial, Punzalan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur on March 19, 1956, alleging (1) lack of jurisdiction over his person due to defective service of summons (served outside Camarines Sur without court approval), and (2) grave abuse of discretion in refusing to lift the default judgment. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition, ruling that (1) Punzalan voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction by filing the telegraphic motion for postponement, and (2) his proper remedy was a petition for relief under Rule 38, which he failed to avail. Punzalan appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Justice of the Peace Court acquired jurisdiction over Punzalan’s person despite the alleged defective service of summons.
2. Whether the default judgment was validly rendered against Punzalan.
3. Whether a petition for relief under Rule 38 was the proper remedy against the default judgment.
4. Whether the inferior court committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to lift the default judgment and grant a new trial.
5. Whether certiorari was a proper remedy under the circumstances.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that Punzalan waived any defect in the service of summons. He failed to raise the question of defective process in his motion to set aside the default judgment in the inferior court, raising it for the first time only in the Court of First Instance. Under the principle that defects in jurisdiction arising from defective process may be waived by failure to make a seasonable objection, the lower court correctly ruled that appellant had waived the lack of valid service.
2. On the Validity of the Default Judgment: The Court ruled that the default judgment was not properly taken. In inferior courts, failure to appear (not failure to answer) is the sole ground for default. Punzalan’s telegraphic motion for postponement, sent on the day of the hearing (deemed filed that day under the rules), constituted an appearance. Although the court learned of the motion only after the hearing, it was aware of it by the following day (February 10) when it still rendered the default judgment. By doing so, the court exceeded its jurisdiction.
3. On the Proper Remedy: The Court held that a petition for relief under Rule 38 was not the proper remedy at that stage. Such a petition is available only when the judgment has become final and executory. Since the default judgment had not yet become final (only 14 days had elapsed when Punzalan filed his motion), the proper remedy was a motion for a new trial under Section 16, Rule 4 (for inferior courts). This was the course Punzalan took by filing his motion to lift the default judgment and for a new trial. The Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that he should have filed a Rule 38 petition.
4. On Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Supreme Court found that the inferior court committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to lift the default judgment and grant a new trial. Punzalan’s failure to appear was due to excusable accident (he learned of the summons only on the hearing day and could not physically travel from Manila to Camarines Sur in time). He did the only thing possible by sending a telegraphic motion. Furthermore, he had pleaded a good and meritorious defense to the complaint, which was admitted by the respondents. Under these circumstances, denying him a chance to present his defense constituted grave abuse of discretion.
5. On the Propriety of Certiorari: The Court ruled that certiorari was properly granted in this meritorious case. While certiorari generally does not substitute for a lost appeal, it has been allowed where the right to appeal was lost through excusable negligence or mistake, and denial would leave the petitioner without a remedy. Punzalan mistakenly pursued certiorari believing the court lacked jurisdiction. His period for appeal had expired. Given the inferior court’s grave abuse of discretion and the merits of Punzalan’s defense, a liberal application of procedural rules was warranted to grant the writ and provide him a remedy.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the Court of First Instance is reversed. The order and judgment of default against appellant in the Justice of the Peace Court of Bula, Camarines Sur, are set aside. The records are remanded to said court for a new trial. Costs against appellees Domingo Sabordo, et al.