De Guia v. De Guia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Mariano De Guia, Apolonia De Guia, Tomasa De Guia, and Irene Manuel filed a complaint for partition against defendants Ciriaco, Leon, Victorina, and Pablo De Guia, alleging that certain real properties were inherited by both parties and that the defendants unjustly refused to subdivide them. An amended complaint impleaded Tomasa De Guia as a defendant because she had become an unwilling co-plaintiff. Procedural History: On June 11, 1992, a Notice of pre-trial conference for June 18, 1992, was issued and sent by registered mail to the parties and their counsel. Both defendants and their counsel failed to attend. Consequently, upon motion of the plaintiffs, the defendants were declared in default, and the plaintiffs were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte. The defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming they received the notice only on the afternoon of June 18, 1992, after the scheduled pre-trial. The plaintiffs opposed, stating their counsel received the notice on June 17, 1992, which they argued was sufficient. They also pointed out the lack of an affidavit of merit. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. On June 11, 1993, judgment was rendered ordering the partition of the lands. The Petition: The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the default order and the ensuing judgment, remanding the case to the lower court for pre-trial in accordance with the Rules. The CA held that the notice of pre-trial received by the counsel a day before the hearing did not bind the clients because the Rules then in effect mandated separate service on parties and their counsel. The CA also noted that the notice did not expressly direct the counsel to inform his clients. The CA denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners now seek review of the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court properly declared respondents in default for failing to attend the pre-trial conference despite the belated receipt of notice. Whether the procedural lapses by respondents (lack of affidavit of merit and certificate of non-forum shopping) should have barred their appeal and the lifting of the default order.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the default order was improper. Under Section 1, Rule 20 of the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP), which was the applicable rule at the time of the dispute in 1992, notice of pre-trial had to be served separately on both the party and the counsel. Applying the rule in Taroma v. Sayo (67 SCRA 508), the Court emphasized that if notice is served only on the counsel, it must carry an express imposition upon said counsel to notify the client of the date, time, and place. In this case, the respondents received the notice on the afternoon of the hearing date, rendering it effectively a lack of notice. Furthermore, the notice sent to the counsel contained no directive to inform the clients. Consequently, the proceedings were void as they violated the respondents' right to procedural due process. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that substantial justice prevails over technical procedural defects. Regarding the lack of an affidavit of merit, the Court noted that the respondents' defenses were already detailed in their Answer, making a separate affidavit redundant. On the matter of the certificate of non-forum shopping, the Court held that while it does not condone the shortcomings of counsel, it is within the inherent power of the Court to suspend its own rules to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court clarified that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP) provision (Rule 18, Section 3), which charges counsel with the duty of notifying the client, was not applicable to this 1992 incident. The remand to the trial court is necessary to ensure the merits of the partition claim are fully and justly resolved.
Main Doctrine
Under the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice of pretrial must be served separately on the counsel and the client. If served only on the counsel, the notice must expressly direct the counsel to inform the client of the date, the time and the place of the pretrial conference. The absence of such notice renders the proceedings void, and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally.