PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. LUDIVICO D. ARCIAGA, TAURINO SINGSON AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
March 16,1987.
Facts:
On August 24, 1960 Taurino Singson from Cabugao Ilocos Sur suffered multiple serious physical injuries when the Philippine Rabbit bus crashed against an acacia tree at La union causing him to file a complaint for contractual tort against the latter. The defendant alleged that the collision was accidental. The trial then was set on December 23,1965 but upon the motion of both counsels, it was postponed and moved to February 3 and 4 1966. Then, on October 6,1966 the Court noted that no pre-trial has ever been conducted so both parties were ordered to agree for a compromise agreement at the office of Philippine Rabbit in Tarlac. The trial was again postponed to November 14,1966 and then transferred again on January 20,1967 upon the petition filed by counsel for Phil.Rabbit and moved again to April 29,1967. During the scheduled trial on April 29,1967, only the defendant was present on the said date. So, the court dismissed the case for non-appearance of the plaintiff.
On July 6,1967 (61 days from receipt of dismissal)Plaintiff Taurino Singson filed a petition for Relief with an affidavit alleging that he went to the trial but due to engine trouble, he arrived late. The lower court grant plaintiff’s petition for relief. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration but the lower court denied the motion. Afterwhich Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc. again filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus for preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals but C.A denied the motion. The company moved for reconsideration but it was also denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the court of Appeals erred in not holding that the 60-day period provided in Sec.38 of the rules of court is mandatory and non-extendible.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule of equity in the case at bar.
Ruling:
According to Sec.3 of Rule 38 of the rules of court, a petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this rule must be verified, filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than 6 months after such judgment or order was entered or said proceeding was taken. The petition for relief was filed 61 days from receipt of the notice of dismissal or one day late. The records show that counsel for private respondent learned of the dismissal on the same day. The records further shows that counsel for private respondent did not move for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, nor for new trial, neither to appeal,thereby allowing the decision to be final and executory.
No one can invoke equity as a ground for reopening a case if an express provision of law exists which the remedy can be invoked. The rule is “equity follows the law” this means that there are instances wherein a court gives remedy, where the law gives none ; but if where a particular remedy is given by the law and that remedy is bounded and circumscribed by particular rules, it would not be proper for the court to take it up where the law leaves it and extend it further than the law allows. Thus, the legal maxim “equity aids the vigilant,not those who slumber on their rights” is applicable to this case.
