Ong v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the possession of a house located at No. 248 Apelo Cruz Street, Pasay. Petitioner Jose Ong initiated a forcible entry and detainer action against respondent Macario Felipe. 2. Procedural History: The justice of the peace court of Pasay ruled in favor of Jose Ong on September 8, 1945, ordering Macario Felipe to vacate the premises and pay costs. Felipe appealed this decision. The appeal was docketed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal as civil case No. 7526. Due to alleged improper service of notice of appeal, Ong was unaware of the pending case. While Ong was abroad in China from September 1947 to January 1948, the respondent judge declared Ong in default, dismissed his complaint, and proceeded to hear Felipe's counterclaim. A judgment was rendered on September 20, 1947, ordering Ong to pay monthly rent and vacate the house. Ong's subsequent motions to set aside the decision and for reconsideration were denied by the respondent judge. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Jose Ong filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. Ong contends that his failure to appear was not due to his fault but to wrongful service of judicial notice. He argues that the decision of September 20, 1947, is a nullity due to a defect in jurisdiction and that he has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, especially given the issuance of a writ of execution. The petition seeks to have the decision and writ of execution set aside and to compel a retrial of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment and dismissing the complaint. Whether the service of notice of appeal and subsequent notices of hearing were proper and sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of First Instance to declare the petitioner in default.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of September 20, 1947, and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto are set aside. The respondent judge is directed to hold a rehearing or retrial of the case with due notification to the parties. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing was not due to his fault. The improper service of the notice of the entry of appeal in the Court of First Instance meant that the petitioner was not duly notified of the pendency of the appeal. When the petitioner had not been officially or judicially informed of the appeal's pendency for over a year and eight months after winning the case in the justice of the peace court, he was justified in believing the case was terminated and in leaving the country. Consequently, he had no reason to notify the court of his absence or appoint a representative. The ground cited by the respondent judge for dismissal, namely, failure to appear despite due notification, was not supported by the Rules of Court, which require specific proofs of service by registered mail, such as the sheriff's affidavit and the registry receipt and return card, none of which were fulfilled. Furthermore, the referral of the case to the clerk of court to receive evidence for the defendant's cross-complaint was not in accordance with the Rules of Court. The absence of the petitioner from the Philippines also meant he did not receive a copy of the answer and cross-complaint. On Issue 2: The service of notice of appeal and subsequent notices of hearing were found to be defective and insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The notice of entry of appeal was sent to an attorney who was not the petitioner's counsel of record. While the respondent judge cited the petitioner's failure to notify the court of a change of address as a reason for denying the motion, the petitioner argued he did not notify the court because he was unaware of any pending case in the CFI. The Court agreed that the petitioner's failure to appear was not due to negligence but to wrongful service of judicial notice. The Rules of Court, specifically Section 22 of Rule 7, mandate proper procedures for service by registered mail, including the submission of an affidavit of the sheriff and the registry receipt and return card, which were not complied with. Therefore, the declaration of default and the subsequent judgment were rendered without proper jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, making them void.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, setting aside the decision of the Court of First Instance and its writ of execution. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing was not due to his fault but to improper service of the notice of appeal, rendering the default judgment void. The Court directed a rehearing of the case, emphasizing the necessity of due notification to the parties.