Gonzales v. State Properties Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent State Properties Corporation filed a complaint for Recovery of Property based on ownership against petitioner Gonzalo R. Gonzales and his siblings, as heirs of the late Benito Gonzales. The complaint included an application for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, seeking confirmation of its right to possess the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-17992, to the exclusion of the heirs. 2. Procedural History: The case was initially raffled to Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, and summons was served on petitioner. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion requesting a new raffle due to lack of notice to other defendants, to which the respondent initially did not object. The respondent later moved for service of summons by publication for the defendants whose residences could not be ascertained, which the court granted. Subsequently, the case was set for raffle before another sala, where petitioner again objected due to lack of notice to the other defendants. The court initially agreed, ordering that no raffle would be conducted until the meaning of Administrative Circular No. 20-95 was clarified. However, upon motion for reconsideration by the respondent, the court reversed its order, setting the case for regular raffle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's order, dismissing petitioner's petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. He argues that the CA gravely abused its discretion in holding that a raffle could proceed without notice to parties whose summons could not be personally served, and in allowing the raffle before acting on a motion for leave to serve summons by publication. Petitioner contends that notice and presence of adverse parties are mandatory requirements for a raffle, even when summons cannot be served. The Supreme Court is asked to determine if a case can be raffled when some parties cannot be served notice due to unknown whereabouts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that if summons could not be personally served, a raffle could likewise be held without notice to parties. Whether the Respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess or lack of jurisdiction in holding that in a case where the parties are unknown, the case will have to be raffled first before the court can act on the motion for leave to serve summons by publication. Whether the Respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition. Whether there are special and important reasons to warrant a review.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a raffle can be held without notice to parties whose summons could not be served: The Court held that the requirements of notice to and presence of the adverse party in a raffle, as provided in Section 4(c) of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, may be dispensed with under specific circumstances. The second paragraph of Section 4(c) explicitly states that the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or where the adverse party is temporarily absent or a nonresident. In such instances, the notice of raffle and the presence of the adverse party must also be dispensed with. To require notice of raffle to parties whose whereabouts are unknown would allow them to prevent a trial court from acting on a case or allowing service of summons by publication, leading to absurdity. On the issue of whether the case will have to be raffled first before the court can act on the motion for leave to serve summons by publication: The Court clarified that the requirement of notice of raffle to a party whose whereabouts are unknown does not apply because the case must be raffled first before the court can act on the motion for leave to serve summons by publication. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of the Rules of Court to ensure the implementation of injunctive writs and preclude jurisdictional defenses based on the defendant's absence. The exception provided in the rules allows for the dispensation of prior or contemporaneous service of summons when diligent efforts to serve have failed, or when the defendant is absent or a nonresident. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. The CA correctly applied the provisions of Section 4(c) of Rule 58 and the exceptions thereto. The petitioner's argument that the raffle should not proceed without notice to all parties, even those whose whereabouts are unknown, was deemed flawed and would lead to an absurd situation where defendants could evade proceedings by simply concealing themselves. The Court also noted that the petitioner had no standing to complain on behalf of the other parties as he did not claim to represent them, and subsequently, the other defendants were located and served summons without complaint. On the issue of special and important reasons for review: The Court found no special and important reasons to warrant a review of the CA's decision. The issues raised by the petitioner were already adequately addressed by the CA, which correctly interpreted and applied the relevant rules of procedure. The petitioner's contention regarding the mandatory nature of notice of raffle was found to be without merit in light of the exceptions provided in the Rules of Court and the circumstances of the case where diligent efforts to serve summons had failed.
Main Doctrine
The requirement of notice to and presence of the adverse party in a raffle of a case involving an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be dispensed with if summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or if the adverse party is temporarily absent or a nonresident.