Eugenio Tenebro v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Davao Farms Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondent Davao Farms Corporation initiated an action against petitioner Eugenio Tenebro for the collection of P117,840.46, representing alleged unpaid purchases of broiler chicks and egg trays. Petitioner, in his answer, disputed the amount, claiming his outstanding balance was only P48,843.68. 2. Procedural History: After pre-trial, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Angel Fernandez, claimed to have lost contact with his client. Despite repeated notices and scheduled hearings, both petitioner and his counsel were absent, leading the trial court to allow the private respondent to present its evidence ex parte. A decision was rendered on July 4, 1988, ordering petitioner to pay P103,690.46 plus interest and costs. A writ of execution was issued. Petitioner, through new counsel, filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, leading to the present petition for review. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, contending that his failure to appear at hearings should not have resulted in the waiver of his right to present evidence, and that the trial court erred in relying on his counsel's assertion that he could not be located. He also argues that the trial court improperly considered the merits of the case in ruling on his petition for relief from judgment, which he asserts should have been solely focused on the issue of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was deprived of due process. Whether the trial court erred in considering the merits of the case in a petition for relief from judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the trial court's order denying the petition for relief from judgment. The Court ruled that petitioner was not deprived of due process and that the trial court was justified in considering the merits of the case within the context of a petition for relief.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process: The Court held that petitioner was not deprived of due process. After executing a special power of attorney in favor of his counsel, petitioner failed to take any further action to protect his interest in the litigation for almost three years. His communications to his counsel were returned undelivered, and he could not be reached by telephone. The subpoena issued to him was also returned undelivered. The Court emphasized that a party who fails to appear at scheduled hearings despite due notice, and neglects to inform the court or his counsel of his whereabouts or new address, cannot claim denial of due process when the case proceeds ex parte. The Court reiterated the principle that the mistakes and negligence of counsel are binding upon the client. Therefore, petitioner waived not only the right to cross-examine but also the right to present evidence due to his repeated failure to appear. The trial court was fully justified in terminating the trial and considering the case submitted for decision. On the issue of the trial court considering the merits of the case: The Court found this contention to be without merit. A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases, as a final judgment should not be disturbed if the party could have appealed or availed of another remedy. The Court explained that a court may validly consider the equities of a case to determine if there is a compelling reason to set aside a decision. This is why Rule 38, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires a petition for relief to be accompanied by an affidavit of merit containing facts constituting a good and substantial cause of action or defense. Therefore, the trial court did not err in considering the merits of the case when ruling on the petition for relief.
Main Doctrine
A party who fails to appear at scheduled hearings despite due notice, and neglects to inform the court or counsel of his whereabouts or new address, cannot claim denial of due process when the case proceeds ex parte and judgment is rendered based on the evidence presented by the opposing party. The negligence or mistakes of counsel are binding upon the client.