Victory Liner, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 22, 1994, Viron Transportation Company filed a complaint for Damages against Victory Liner, Inc. for a vehicular accident that occurred on May 6, 1994. Petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. filed its Answer on March 27, 1995. The pre-trial was initially scheduled for April 27, 1995, and reset to May 23, 1995, at 2:00 PM, upon petitioner's motion. Procedural History: On May 23, 1995, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Atilano B. Lim, appeared without a representative from Victory Liner, Inc. He arrived after the court session had adjourned, leading to petitioner being declared in default and Viron Transportation Company being allowed to present its evidence ex parte. Petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default on May 24, 1995, citing heavy traffic and difficulty in locating the court's sala as reasons for the late arrival. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) denied this motion on May 26, 1995, finding the justifications unacceptable and noting the absence of the parties and the lack of a special power of attorney for the counsel. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on June 9, 1995. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed and affirmed the MTC's orders on May 22, 1996. The Petition: Victory Liner, Inc. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's decision to affirm the MTC's orders, arguing that it was deprived of its day in court and that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Metropolitan Trial Court's Orders of May 26, 1995, and June 9, 1995, which declared petitioner in default and denied its motion to lift the order of default. Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in adopting the Metropolitan Trial Court's presumption that the petitioner's counsel had no special authority to represent the petitioner at the pre-trial conference.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37543 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in affirming the orders of default: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the lower courts' orders. The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of pre-trial conferences and the consequence of non-appearance, which is being declared in default or non-suited, as provided in Section 2, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the presence of parties or their representatives with special authority is crucial for the pre-trial to proceed. In this case, the petitioner's counsel failed to present convincing proof of a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to represent the petitioner during the pre-trial. Therefore, even if the counsel had arrived on time, the pre-trial could not have proceeded without the party's presence or a duly authorized representative. The Court found the justifications of heavy traffic and unfamiliarity with the court's sala to be unacceptable reasons for lifting the order of default, as such excuses could lead to a clogging of cases. On the issue of the counsel's alleged lack of special authority: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the petitioner failed to indubitably show that a Special Power of Attorney was executed to enable its lawyer to represent it during the pre-trial. The Court stressed that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging, and any assertion without substantiation is merely a self-serving statement. The Court cited the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally given great weight and respect, absent a clear showing of error. Therefore, the absence of competent evidence of a special power of attorney meant that the lawyer could not be deemed capacitated to appear in place of the party, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to appear at all, thus justifying the declaration of default.
Main Doctrine
The failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, even if due to the counsel's late arrival caused by heavy traffic, may result in a party being declared in default, especially when the counsel lacks a special power of attorney to represent the party and the court finds no compelling reason to lift the order of default.