8/12/2019 Crisologo v Globe

1/1

RULE 41: G.R. No. 167631 December 16, 2005

Jenette Marie B. Crisologo, Petitioner,vs.GLOBE TELECOM INC. and Cesar M. Maureal, Vice President for HumanResources, Respondents.

FACTS:

1. CRISOLOGO was an employee of GLOBE and as Director was given aToyota Camry, but was later separated, causing her to file illegaldismissal and reinstatement before NLRC but was dismissed. Appealbefore CA on CERTIORARI

2. GLOBE on RTC: action for recovery of the car: application for a writ ofreplevin with damages.

3. CRISOLOGO: dismiss Litis pendentia and forum shopping DENIED.Before CA: writ of prohibition to enjoin proceedings in the replevin

case4. GLOBE: motion to declare CRISO in default was GRANTED.5. TC decision: declaring GLOBE to have the right of possession over the

subject motor vehicle and ordering CRISO to pay GLOBE6. CRISO: SC: CERTIORARI was denied for being a wrong remedy under

RC.7. CRISO: MR on SC: alleging that the filing of said petition is the proper

recourse, citing Matute vs. Court of Appeals , 26 SCRA 798 (1969),wherein it was ruled that a defendant declared in default has theremedy set forth in Section 2, paragraph 3 of Rule 41 of the old Rulesof Court. Petitioner then cited in her motion, "Section 2, paragraph 3or (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

ISSUE: WON PET for CERT is the proper remedy to assail RTC judgment

HELD: NO

1. Evidently, petitioner misread the provision cited in the Matute case asthat pertaining to Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure, as amended, which states: "(c) Appeal by certiorari . - In allcases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appealshall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in

accordance with Rule 45." Hence, she directly filed her petition forreview on certiorari with the Court. VINTAGE CASE na xa, wontapply coz of New RC old, had already been superseded by the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and under these new rules, thedifferent modes of appeal are clearly laid down.

2. The filing of the present petition is clearly not the proper remedy toassail the default judgment rendered by the trial court. Petitioner stillhas the available remedy of filing with the Regional Trial Court amotion for new trial or an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appealsfrom the trial courts default judgment. Note that petitioner admitsthat she was "properly declared in default. "6 Thus, there is noquestion of any improvident or improper declaration of default by thetrial court, and the remedy of filing a special civil actionfor certiorari has been effectively foreclosed on petitioner. Her onlyrecourse then is to file an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appealsunder Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, asamended.

3. The remedies available to a party declared in default:

a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and beforejudgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default on theground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake orexcusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3, Rule 18[now Sec. 3(b), Rule 9]);

b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discoveredthe default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may filea motion for new trial under Section 1 (a) of Rule 37;

c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become finaland executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 [now Section 1]

of Rule 38; and

d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary tothe evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of defaulthas been presented by him (Sec. 2, Rule 41).

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_167631_2005.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_167631_2005.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_167631_2005.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/dec2005/gr_167631_2005.html#fnt6