Palisoc v. Locsin
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns two parcels of land. A decision was previously rendered on April 8, 1931, adjudicating these lands to Margarita Manzon et al. The petitioners in this case are seeking to have this decision set aside. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, represented by attorneys Bernabe Aquino and Alejandro de Guzman, were declared in default by the respondent judge on June 6, 1932. This default order, which reaffirmed a prior decision from April 8, 1931, was issued after the petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a motion to set aside the default and the decision, which was denied by the trial court after a hearing. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for relief filed under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners seek to have the default order and subsequent decision set aside, primarily arguing that they lacked proper notice of the trial hearing scheduled for June 6, 1932. They contend that the notice to attorney Aquino was not binding as he had become provincial governor, and that notice to attorney De Guzman was ineffective due to issues with registered mail delivery. The petition also asserts that the trial court should have granted their motion to set aside the default.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice of hearing sent to attorney Bernabe Aquino was binding on the petitioners. Whether the notice of hearing sent to attorney Alejandro de Guzman was sufficient. Whether a petition for relief under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the proper remedy when the trial court can still grant relief under section 113.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order of default and the subsequent decision are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the binding effect of notice to attorney Aquino: The contention that notice to attorney Aquino was not binding because he had become provincial governor and withdrawn from law practice lacks merit. Aquino had not withdrawn his appearance in the land registration case. No law prohibits a member of the bar from continuing to practice law after becoming a provincial governor, and a clerk of court is not authorized to take judicial notice of such a supposed prohibition. Therefore, the notice to Aquino was valid and binding on the petitioners. On the sufficiency of notice to attorney De Guzman: The record shows that notices of the registered letter were sent by the postmaster in Manila to De Guzman at his address in ample time for him to claim the letter and attend the hearing. His failure to call for the registered letter was his own fault and does not constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside the judgment of the trial court. The registered letter was sent to his postal address of record, and subsequent notices were duly served at his office. On the availability of the remedy under section 513: There is another reason why the relief prayed for should not be granted. The petitioners promptly filed a motion in the land registration case to have the default and the decision set aside. After a hearing, the trial court denied this motion. In such a situation, the remedy under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not available. This section requires that the court which made the order has finally adjourned so that no adequate remedy exists in that court. Since the trial court could still grant relief under section 113, and did consider the motion, the condition precedent for invoking section 513 was not met. The petitioners' proper recourse would have been to except to the order denying their motion and take an appeal therefrom.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not available when the court that rendered the order is still in session and can grant relief under section 113, as the condition precedent of having no adequate remedy in that court is not met.