GR L 16870; (May, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16870; May 31, 1963
Eloy Prospero, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Alfredo Robles, Ignacio Loyola, Emilio Magcalos, Lucio Bersamin and Andoy “Doe”, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Eloy Prospero filed an action for damages and a writ of injunction against the defendants. After the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, they failed to file an answer within the prescribed period. Consequently, the trial court declared them in default, received Prospero’s ex-parte evidence, and rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to pay damages and permanently enjoining them from establishing ticket lines near Prospero’s musical performances. The defendants, through new counsel, later filed a verified motion for new trial and subsequently a petition for relief from judgment. They alleged that their failure to answer was due to the excusable negligence of their former attorney, Atty. Aurelio S. Arguelles, Jr., and that they had a meritorious defense, including the claim that their picketing was a protected activity in a labor dispute.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed on time and substantively sufficient under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court; and (2) whether the trial court erred in issuing a permanent injunction against the defendants’ picketing.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for relief and upheld the injunction. On the procedural issue, the petition was filed seventy-nine days after the defendants gained knowledge of the default order and judgment, exceeding the sixty-day reglementary period under Rule 38. Substantively, the petition was deficient as it failed to include a proper affidavit of merit. The defendants’ bare allegation of their former counsel’s negligence, without detailing the specific facts constituting such negligence, was legally insufficient. Furthermore, their claim of having a good defense was a mere conclusion, not the factual showing required to prove a meritorious case.
On the substantive claim regarding the injunction, the Court deferred to the trial court’s factual finding, which was conclusive on appeal. The lower court had expressly found that no employer-employee relationship existed between Prospero and the defendants at the time of the picketing. Therefore, the action was an ordinary one for damages and injunction, not a labor dispute where picketing might be protected as an exercise of free speech. The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction in issuing the restraining order under these circumstances.