Alicer v. Compas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originates from a complaint filed by Alberto Compas against Winefreda Pineda, Amando Pineda, Trinidad Alicer, the Heirs of Arturo Alicer, Edgar Selda, and the Rural Bank of Carigara (Leyte) for Reconveyance of Title and Damages. The dispute centers on the underlying property ownership and related damages. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Tacloban City, initially set pre-trial conferences, which were repeatedly rescheduled. On July 25, 2003, Trinidad Alicer and the Heirs of Arturo Alicer, along with their counsel, failed to appear for the pre-trial conference, leading the trial court to declare them in default. Their subsequent motion to lift the order of default and motion for reconsideration were denied by the trial court on February 23, 2005, and May 12, 2005, respectively. The Court of Appeals affirmed these orders, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Trinidad Alicer and the Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the Heirs of Arturo Alicer filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. They argued that they did not receive notice of the pre-trial conference on July 25, 2003, and that notices should have been served on a specific counsel. The petition also raised the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order declaring them in default.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the order of the trial court declaring petitioners in default due to their failure to appear during the pre-trial conference, and whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in doing so. What are the effects of a default order on a party's right to appeal the judgment on the main case?
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 29, 2007, and its Resolution dated April 17, 2009, in CA-G.R. CEBU-SP No. 00920, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the default order: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners in default. Under Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of a defendant to appear at the pre-trial conference allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment based thereon. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly that petitioners were served notice of the pre-trial conference, are conclusive upon the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not its function to re-analyze and weigh the evidence presented. The petitioners' claim of not receiving notice was found to be due to the negligence of their counsel, Atty. Emata, who failed to properly inform the court of his change of address. This failure to notify the court of a change of address is a violation of the Rules of Court and constitutes inexcusable negligence binding upon the petitioners. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the parties, through their counsel, to inform the court of any change of address, and the court is not obligated to track down a counsel's various addresses. The use of multiple addresses by Atty. Emata caused confusion and muddled the service of pleadings and court notices. The Court also noted that the petitioners were not denied substantial justice, as they could still appeal the judgment on the main case, which they did. On the effect of default: The Court reiterated that a party declared in default is not barred from appealing the judgment on the main case. Such an appeal, however, must be based on the decision being contrary to law or evidence already presented, and not on the alleged invalidity of the default order itself. The Court observed that in this case, while the issue of the default order was pending, the trial court rendered a decision on the merits, and the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal, indicating they availed of their right to appeal the judgment on the main case.
Main Doctrine
A party declared in default for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference cannot appeal the default order itself, but may appeal the judgment on the merits of the case. A counsel's failure to notify the court of a change of address constitutes inexcusable negligence binding upon the client.