Title
Agulto vs. Tecson
Case
G.R. No. 145276
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2005
A 1997 damages case dismissed, revived, and decided ex parte; SC ruled RTC violated due process by failing to notify petitioners of pre-trial, nullifying proceedings.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 145276)

Facts:

  1. Initiation of the Case: On August 25, 1997, respondent William Z. Tecson filed an action for damages against petitioners Rolando Agulto, Maxima Agulto, Cecille Tenoria, and Maribel Mallari in the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 79, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-97-31977.

  2. Petitioners' Defense: The petitioners and Mallari filed their answer on October 29, 1997, claiming that Tecson had no cause of action against them and alleging malicious prosecution. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

  3. Dismissal and Revival of the Case: On November 19, 1998, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. Tecson filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, and on December 2, 1998, the RTC revived the complaint and scheduled a pre-trial conference for January 21, 1999, which was later reset to April 29, 1999.

  4. Pre-Trial Issues: On April 29, 1999, petitioner Rolando Agulto and his counsel were informed that the presiding judge was on leave. The pre-trial was suggested to be reset to June 17, 1999, but no official notice was given. On June 17, 1999, the petitioners failed to appear at the pre-trial and did not submit their pre-trial brief. The RTC allowed Tecson to present his evidence ex parte.

  5. Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming they were not notified of the June 17, 1999 pre-trial. However, the RTC rendered a decision on July 12, 1999, ordering the petitioners to pay Tecson P170,000 in damages.

  6. Subsequent Motions: Petitioners filed motions to cite Tecson's counsel in contempt and to set aside the decision. These were denied by the RTC on September 24, 1999.

  7. Petition to the CA: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, claiming the RTC violated their due process rights. The CA dismissed the petition on September 27, 2000, ruling that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal, not certiorari.

  8. Supreme Court Petition: Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, assigning errors in the CA's decision.

Issue:

  1. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration and motions to cite counsel in contempt and to set aside the decision.
  2. Whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC's decision, which was based on technicalities rather than the merits of the case.
  3. Whether the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.