[G.R. No. 135384. April 4, 2001]
MARIANO DE GUIA and APOLONIA DE GUIA, petitioners, vs. CIRIACO, LEON, VICTORINA, TOMASA and PABLO, all surnamed DE GUIA, respondents.
Plaintiffs Mariano De Guia, Apolonia De Guia, Tomasa De Guia and Irene Manuel filed with the court below a complaint for partition against defendants Ciriaco, Leon, Victorina and Pablo De Guia. They alleged that the real properties therein described were inherited by plaintiffs and defendants from their predecessors-in-interest, and that the latter unjustly refused to have the properties subdivided among them. The lower court impleaded Tomasa De Guia as defendant for the reason that she had become an unwilling co-plaintiff.
The Clerk of Court issued a Notice setting the case for pre-trial conference and said notice were sent by registered mails to parties and their counsels. Both defendant and counsel failed to attend the pre-trial conference and was declared in default. Plaintiff were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte.
Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the Order which declared them as in default. They explained therein that they received the Notice of pre-trial only in the afternoon of June 18, 1992, giving them no chance to appear for such proceeding in the morning of that day. The Motion was opposed by plaintiffs who pointed out that per Postal Delivery Receipt, defendants counsel actually received his copy of the Notice on June 17, 1992 or one day before the date of pre-trial. Citing Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, plaintiffs further urged that counsels receipt of the said notice on June 17, 1992 was sufficient to bind defendants who received said notice on the next day. Finally, they faulted defendants for failing to support their Motion for Reconsideration with an affidavit of merit showing among others that they had a meritorious defense.
Issue: WON there is notice of Pre-Trial.
Held:
When the present dispute arose in 1992, the applicable rule was Section 1, Rule 20 of the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provided as follows:
SECTION 1. Pre-trial mandatory. -- In any action after the last pleading has been filed, the court shall direct the parties and their attorneys to appear before it for a conference to consider:
This provision mandated separate service of the notice of pretrial upon the parties and their lawyers. In Taroma v. Sayo, the Court explained: For the guidance of the bench and bar, therefore, the SC in reaffirming the ruling that notice of pre-trial must be served separately upon the party and his counsel of record, restates that while service of such notice to party may be made directly to the party, it is best that the trial courts uniformly serve such notice to party through or care of his counsel at counsels address with the express imposition upon counsel of the obligation of notifying the party of the date, time and place of the pre-trial conference and assuring that the party either appear thereat or deliver counsel a written authority to represent the party with power to compromise the case, with the warning that a party who fails to do so may be non-suited or declared in default.
Hence, before being declared non-suited or considered in default, parties and their counsel must be shown to have been served with notice of the pretrial conference. Moreover, if served only on the counsel, the notice must expressly direct him or her to inform the client of the date, the time and the place of the pretrial conference. The absence of such notice renders the proceedings void, and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally.
In this case, respondents received the notice on the afternoon of June 18, 1992, or after the pretrial scheduled on the morning of that day. Moreover, although the Notice was also sent to their counsel, it did not contain any imposition or directive that he informs his clients of the pretrial conference. The Notice merely stated: You are hereby notified that the above-entitled case will be heard before this court on the 18th day of June, 1992, at 8:30 a.m. for pre-trial.
Such belated receipt of the notice, which was not attributable to respondents, amounted to a lack of notice. Thus, the lower court erred in declaring them in default and in denying them the opportunity to fully ventilate and defend their claim in court.
Of course, this situation would not have arisen under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It specifically provides that notice of pretrial shall be served on counsel, who is charged with the duty of notifying the client. Considering the milieu of the present case, however, such amended proviso is not applicable.
MARIANO DE GUIA and APOLONIA DE GUIA, petitioners, vs. CIRIACO, LEON, VICTORINA, TOMASA and PABLO, all surnamed DE GUIA, respondents.
Plaintiffs Mariano De Guia, Apolonia De Guia, Tomasa De Guia and Irene Manuel filed with the court below a complaint for partition against defendants Ciriaco, Leon, Victorina and Pablo De Guia. They alleged that the real properties therein described were inherited by plaintiffs and defendants from their predecessors-in-interest, and that the latter unjustly refused to have the properties subdivided among them. The lower court impleaded Tomasa De Guia as defendant for the reason that she had become an unwilling co-plaintiff.
The Clerk of Court issued a Notice setting the case for pre-trial conference and said notice were sent by registered mails to parties and their counsels. Both defendant and counsel failed to attend the pre-trial conference and was declared in default. Plaintiff were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte.
Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the Order which declared them as in default. They explained therein that they received the Notice of pre-trial only in the afternoon of June 18, 1992, giving them no chance to appear for such proceeding in the morning of that day. The Motion was opposed by plaintiffs who pointed out that per Postal Delivery Receipt, defendants counsel actually received his copy of the Notice on June 17, 1992 or one day before the date of pre-trial. Citing Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, plaintiffs further urged that counsels receipt of the said notice on June 17, 1992 was sufficient to bind defendants who received said notice on the next day. Finally, they faulted defendants for failing to support their Motion for Reconsideration with an affidavit of merit showing among others that they had a meritorious defense.
Issue: WON there is notice of Pre-Trial.
Held:
When the present dispute arose in 1992, the applicable rule was Section 1, Rule 20 of the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provided as follows:
SECTION 1. Pre-trial mandatory. -- In any action after the last pleading has been filed, the court shall direct the parties and their attorneys to appear before it for a conference to consider:
This provision mandated separate service of the notice of pretrial upon the parties and their lawyers. In Taroma v. Sayo, the Court explained: For the guidance of the bench and bar, therefore, the SC in reaffirming the ruling that notice of pre-trial must be served separately upon the party and his counsel of record, restates that while service of such notice to party may be made directly to the party, it is best that the trial courts uniformly serve such notice to party through or care of his counsel at counsels address with the express imposition upon counsel of the obligation of notifying the party of the date, time and place of the pre-trial conference and assuring that the party either appear thereat or deliver counsel a written authority to represent the party with power to compromise the case, with the warning that a party who fails to do so may be non-suited or declared in default.
Hence, before being declared non-suited or considered in default, parties and their counsel must be shown to have been served with notice of the pretrial conference. Moreover, if served only on the counsel, the notice must expressly direct him or her to inform the client of the date, the time and the place of the pretrial conference. The absence of such notice renders the proceedings void, and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally.
In this case, respondents received the notice on the afternoon of June 18, 1992, or after the pretrial scheduled on the morning of that day. Moreover, although the Notice was also sent to their counsel, it did not contain any imposition or directive that he informs his clients of the pretrial conference. The Notice merely stated: You are hereby notified that the above-entitled case will be heard before this court on the 18th day of June, 1992, at 8:30 a.m. for pre-trial.
Such belated receipt of the notice, which was not attributable to respondents, amounted to a lack of notice. Thus, the lower court erred in declaring them in default and in denying them the opportunity to fully ventilate and defend their claim in court.
Of course, this situation would not have arisen under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It specifically provides that notice of pretrial shall be served on counsel, who is charged with the duty of notifying the client. Considering the milieu of the present case, however, such amended proviso is not applicable.
No comments:
Post a Comment