Borlongan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Dioscoro and Susana Macaraig filed a complaint for damages against Antonio Borlongan in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, alleging breach of contract. After the issues were joined, the trial court scheduled a pre-trial conference for October 27, 1970. Borlongan and his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial, leading to Borlongan being declared in default upon motion by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were then permitted to present their evidence ex-parte. 2. Procedural History: Following the order of default, Borlongan filed a motion to set aside the default order, claiming neither he nor his counsel received notice of the pre-trial, attributing this failure to accident or mistake, and asserting he had meritorious defenses and counterclaims. The trial court denied this motion on June 19, 1971. Borlongan then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the orders of default and denial of his motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that while the order of default itself was not appealable, the denial of the motion to set it aside was, thus rendering certiorari an inappropriate remedy. 3. The Petition: Borlongan seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing his petition for certiorari. He argues, citing Matute vs. Court of Appeals, that a party illegally or improvidently declared in default may pursue certiorari. The core of his argument is that he was indeed illegally or improvidently declared in default because he and his counsel never received notice of the pre-trial. The private respondents, however, assert that notices were sent by registered mail to Borlongan's address and his counsel's office, and that Borlongan failed to claim his mail from the post office within the statutory period, and his counsel also failed to claim their mail despite multiple notices. Borlongan did not deny these factual assertions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the petitioner was illegally or improvidently declared in default.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari, as an appeal from the denial of the motion to set aside the order of default was an adequate remedy. The petitioner was not illegally or improvidently declared in default.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal. The Court reiterated the principle that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. While the order declaring a party in default is generally not appealable, the subsequent order denying a motion to set aside that default is appealable. In this case, the denial of Borlongan's motion to set aside the order of default was appealable, providing him with an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Therefore, a petition for certiorari to annul the denial was not the proper recourse. On the issue of whether the petitioner was illegally or improvidently declared in default: The Supreme Court found that Borlongan was not illegally or improvidently declared in default. The Court emphasized the rules on service by registered mail. According to Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. However, if the addressee fails to claim the mail from the post office within five days from the date of the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of that period. The facts showed that notices of registered mail were sent to Borlongan and his counsel, but they failed to claim the mail from the post office within the prescribed period. This failure constituted complete service, making the declaration of default neither illegal nor improvident.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie to annul an order denying a motion to set aside an order of default if the denial itself is appealable, as an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt, or upon expiration of five days from notice to claim the mail if not claimed.