Lim v. Animas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a complaint for recovery of possession of a parcel of land and damages filed by the Heirs of Tan Wahab against Rufina Lim and Tiamseng. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 1229 in the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato. 2. Procedural History: After the complaint was amended and answered, the respondent Judge, on motion of the private respondents, set the case for pre-trial. A notice of pre-trial was addressed to the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Marciano V. Guevarra. However, due to the counsel's absence in Manila, the notice was served on his married daughter who misplaced it. Consequently, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared at the scheduled pre-trial. The respondent Judge then issued an order declaring the petitioners in default and authorizing the clerk of court to receive the evidence of the private respondents ex parte. Subsequent motions by the petitioners to lift the order of default and for reconsideration were denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. They contend that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing a pre-trial notice solely to their counsel without a separate notice to them, by declaring them in default despite service of notice on an unauthorized person, and by allowing ex parte reception of evidence, thereby denying them due process. They pray for the nullification of the default order, prohibition of any decision based on the ex parte evidence, and a mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to set the case for trial on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners in default without proper notice of the pre-trial conference. Whether notice of pre-trial must be served separately upon the party and their counsel.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The questioned Order of January 4, 1974, declaring petitioners in default, is declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper notice for pre-trial: The Court held that pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, pre-trial is mandatory, and parties as well as their counsel are required to appear. A party failing to appear may be non-suited or considered in default. However, before a party can be declared in default for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, it must be shown that both the party and their counsel were duly served with notice of such conference. The Court emphasized the adverse effects of a party's failure to appear, necessitating due process in notification. On the requirement of separate notice to party and counsel: The Court ruled that notice of the pre-trial must be served separately upon the party affected thereby and his counsel of record. This notice must state the purpose, time, and place of the pre-trial conference and require both the party and counsel to appear. The service to the party may be made directly to them or through their counsel, who would then be obligated to serve the notice upon the party. In this case, the notice was served on a person not authorized to receive it for the counsel, and no separate notice was served on the petitioners themselves. This failure to comply with the rules on service of notice constitutes a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge.
Main Doctrine
Notice of pre-trial must be served separately upon the party affected thereby and his counsel of record, stating therein the purpose, time and place of the pre-trial conference and requiring said party and his counsel to appear thereat. Failure to do so may constitute grave abuse of discretion.