Pineda v. Veloira
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Aurelia T. Pineda filed an action for forcible entry and illegal detainer against defendant Felino V. Veloira, alleging that the defendant unlawfully entered and took possession of her land by means of force, stealth, and strategy, and refused to vacate despite demands. Procedural History: The case was originally filed in the Municipal Court of Quezon City and appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. Instead of filing an answer, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of cause of action and that the issue of ownership was pending in another court. The CFI denied this motion on May 17, 1958, after a hearing. The parties were notified in open court, but the defendant received a copy of the order of denial via registered mail on June 27, 1958. On June 30, 1958, the defendant filed his answer. However, on the same day, the court declared the defendant in default upon plaintiff's motion, opining that the period to plead resumed on May 17, 1958. The defendant's motion to set aside the order of default, arguing that the period resumed on June 27, 1958, was denied by the CFI. The Petition: The defendant appealed the CFI's order denying his motion to set aside the order of default.
Issue(s)
Whether the running of the period to file an answer resumed on May 17, 1958 (oral notice in open court) or on June 27, 1958 (receipt of copy of the order denying the motion to dismiss). Whether the defendant's answer was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of default and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The Court ruled that the answer was filed within the reglementary period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of when the period to file an answer resumed: The Court held that notice given orally in open court regarding the denial of a motion is not sufficient and does not constitute service under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court. The provisions of Rule 27 prescribing modes of service are mandatory and intended to provide a uniform procedure. Therefore, service of the order denying a motion must be made either personally or by mail to be effective. In this case, the defendant was only effectively served with notice of the denial of his motion to dismiss on June 27, 1958, when he actually received a copy of the order by registered mail. The oral notice in open court on May 17, 1958, was insufficient. On whether the answer was filed within the reglementary period: Under Section 7 of Rule 40, in appeals from an inferior court to the CFI, the defendant has 15 days to file an answer from the date of receipt of notice that the case has been docketed. The defendant received notice of the docketing on March 25, 1958. He filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, 1958, which interrupted the time to plead. After the denial of his motion on May 17, 1958, he had thirteen days remaining to file his answer. Since he was effectively served with notice of the denial only on June 27, 1958, he had until July 10, 1958, to file his pleading. His answer, filed on June 30, 1958, was therefore well within the prescribed reglementary period. Consequently, the order of default should not have been entered, and his motion to lift it should have been granted.
Main Doctrine
Notice of denial of a motion given orally in open court is not sufficient and does not constitute service under Rule 27 of the Rules of Court; service must be made personally or by mail.