Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35102) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case involves a petition by Antonio Borlongan against the decision of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition for certiorari filed against respondents Dioscoro and Susana Macaraig. The case was initiated when the Macaraigs filed a complaint for damages against Borlongan in Civil Case No. Q-14785 due to an alleged breach of contract, heard in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City on August 12, 1970. After the issues were joined, a pre-trial was scheduled for October 27, 1970. However, Borlongan and his counsel did not appear for the hearing, leading the trial judge to declare him in default. The Macaraigs presented their evidence ex parte on October 29, 1970, and a report was prepared by the Deputy Clerk of Court. On May 27, 1971, Borlongan filed a motion to set aside the order of default, claiming he had not received the notice for the pre-trial due to accident or mistake. He asserted that no proof existed indicating that he or his attorney were properly in
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35102) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The spouses Dioscoro and Susana Macaraig (respondents) filed a complaint against Antonio Borlongan (petitioner) for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract before the defunct Court of First Instance of Quezon City.
- After the issues were joined, the trial judge set the case for pre-trial on October 27, 1970.
- Pre-Trial Developments and Default
- On the scheduled pre-trial day (October 27, 1970), both Borlongan and his counsel failed to appear.
- On motion of the plaintiffs, the trial judge declared the defendant in default.
- The plaintiffs were instructed to present their evidence ex-parte before the Deputy Clerk of Court on October 29, 1970, which was duly submitted and reported to the trial judge.
- Post-Default Motions by the Petitioner
- Borlongan filed a motion on May 27, 1971, seeking to set aside the order of default issued on October 27, 1970.
- His motion asserted that:
- Neither he nor his counsel received notice of the pre-trial set for October 27, 1970, attributing such failure to an accident or mistake.
- The order of default was issued without proof that either he or his counsel had received notice.
- He had meritorious defenses against the complaint as well as valid counterclaims against the plaintiffs.
- The opposition by the plaintiffs contended that the petitioner failed to claim his notice from the Post Office of Manila, despite three attempts at notice.
- Subsequent Denials and Filing for Certiorari
- The trial judge denied the petitioner's motion to set aside the order of default on June 19, 1971 and later also denied an oral motion for reconsideration.
- Borlongan then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
- Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, noting that although the order of default itself was interlocutory and not appealable, the denial of the motion to set aside that order was appealable.
- The CA held that the petitioner had the proper remedy of appeal from the latter order, rendering the petition for certiorari inappropriate.
- Verification of Service
- In their answer, the respondents detailed that a complaint was filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch XVII, with proper notice of the pre-trial set for October 27, 1970, sent by registered mail to both the petitioner and his counsel.
- Multiple notices were issued:
- Registered letters sent on October 7, October 13, and October 20, 1970 to the petitioner at his Manila address.
- Notices sent to the petitioner’s counsel at his office address on October 15 and October 20, 1970.
- Despite these notices, the petitioner failed to claim his mail, thus completing the service under the applicable rule.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was illegally or improvidently declared in default.
- Did the petitioner truly not receive notice of the pre-trial setting, or was it a case of his own failure to claim the registered mail?
- Was the order of default validly and properly issued under the rules of court?
- Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when an appeal is available.
- Given that the order of default was declared interlocutory yet the subsequent denial of the motion to set aside default was appealable, did the petitioner wrongly opt for certiorari over the proper appeal mechanism?
- Does the case fall within the exception stated in Matute vs. Court of Appeals where a petition for certiorari may be used for an illegally or improvidently declared default?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)