Mata v. Rita Legarda, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Gertrudes Mata and Conrado Mata filed an action against Rita Legarda, Inc. to compel the execution of a deed of absolute sale for two lots and delivery of the title, or in the alternative, payment of P4,293.91. The defendant admitted some allegations and denied others, stating it had no title to one lot and would transfer title upon issuance of its own title. Procedural History: The case was set for hearing on August 8, 1957. The defendant failed to appear, and the court rendered a default judgment ordering the execution of the deed of sale or payment of the sum. The defendant moved for reconsideration, which was granted, and the case was reset. However, the defendant again failed to appear on February 18, 1958, leading the court to reinstate its previous decision. The defendant filed another motion for reconsideration, supported by affidavits, claiming the notice of hearing was never received by its attorney of record or his office, but was received by an employee of the corporation. The Petition: The defendant appealed from the orders dated April 30, 1958, denying reconsideration, and February 18, 1958, reinstating the decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of notice of hearing to an employee of the defendant corporation, instead of its attorney of record, constitutes valid notice under the Rules of Court. Whether the lower court erred in reinstating the default judgment and denying the defendant's motion for reconsideration when the notice of hearing was improperly served.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders appealed from and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the service of notice of hearing to an employee of the defendant corporation, instead of its attorney of record, was not a valid notice as required by the Rules of Court. Citing Rule 27, Section 2, the Court emphasized the well-established principle that once a party appears of record by attorney, service of pleadings, notices, and other court processes must be made upon the attorney, not the party itself. This rule is crucial for ensuring proper legal representation and adherence to procedural due process. The Court referenced Vivero vs. Santos and Perez vs. Araneta, which underscore that notice to the party himself, unless explicitly ordered by the court, and not to the attorney who has appeared in his behalf, is not considered notice in law. Therefore, the service to Jose de la Paz, an employee of Rita Legarda, Inc., rather than to Atty. Mariano G. Bustos or his law office, rendered the service of notice invalid. On Issue 2: In light of the invalid service of notice, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court erred in reinstating the default judgment and subsequently denying the defendant's motion for reconsideration. Since the defendant's attorney of record was never properly notified of the scheduled hearing, the proceedings taken against the defendant at that hearing were not binding upon either the attorney or his client. The Court found that due process was effectively violated because the party was deprived of the opportunity to be heard through its counsel due to a procedural defect in the service of notice. Consequently, the reinstatement of the default decision and the denial of the motion for reconsideration, which was supported by verified affidavits attesting to the counsel's hospitalization and lack of proper notice, constituted an abuse of discretion, necessitating the setting aside of the appealed orders and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
Service of notices of hearing must be made upon the attorney of record, and not upon the party himself, unless ordered by the court. Failure to comply with this rule renders proceedings taken against the party at the hearing void.