G.R. No. 174414 - ELMER F. GOMEZ, vs. MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby decides this case in favor of [herein petitioner] and against [herein respondent], ordering [respondent] to pay [petitioner] the following amounts: P40,000.00 representing the principal amount of the loan; P57,600.00 representing interest at the rate of 24% per annum reckoned from August 26, 1998 until the present; and P15,000.00 representing attorney's fees. On 28 May 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment [6] alleging that there was no effective service of summons upon her since there was no personal service of the same. The summons was received by one Mrs. Alicia dela Torre, who was not authorized to receive summons or other legal pleadings or documents on respondent's behalf. Respondent attributes her failure to file an Answer to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. She claimed that she had good and valid defenses against petitioner and that the RTC had no jurisdiction as the principal amount being claimed by petitioner was only P40,000.00, an amount falling within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). After petitioner filed his Answer [7] to the Petition for Relief from Judgment and respondent her Reply, [8] the said Petition was set for hearing. After several dates were set and called for hearing, respondent, thru counsel, failed to appear despite being duly notified; hence, her Petition for Relief was dismissed [9] for her apparent lack of interest to pursue the petition. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [10] of the dismissal of her Petition for Relief, stating that her counsel's failure to appear was not intentional, but due to human shortcomings or frailties, constituting honest mistake or excusable negligence. On 18 November 2005, the RTC granted [11] respondent's motion for reconsideration, to wit: In regard to the motion for reconsideration file by [herein respondent] of the order of the court dismissing her petition for relief from judgment, the court, in the interest of justice, shall give [respondent] one more chance to present the merits of her position in a hearing. The dismissal of the petition is therefore reconsidered and set aside. On 20 June 2006, the RTC granted respondent's Petition for Relief from Judgment and set aside its Decision dated 4 May 2004 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The fallo of the assailed RTC Order reads: WHEREFORE, the petition for relief is hereby GRANTED. The decision of this court dated May 4, 2004 is RECONSIDERED and set aside for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court, without prejudice to the case being refiled in the proper Municipal Trial Courts. [12] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the afore-quoted Order, but the same was denied by the RTC in another Order [13] dated 2 August 2006. Hence, the present Petition filed directly before this Court. In his Memorandum, [14] petitioner raises the following issues for the Court's consideration: Whether or not t