G.R. No. 139020 - Buaya vs. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc.

On July 31, 1985, Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. filed a complaint against Paquito B. Buaya, its then branch manager for Cebu, seeking the collection of P678,076.83 for unremitted premium collections.
The petitioner and his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial, leading the trial court to declare him in default and allow the respondent to present its evidence ex parte.

Based on the respondent’s evidence, the trial court rendered a Decision on September 17, 1987, ruling in favor of Stronghold Insurance and ordering Buaya to pay the principal sum, legal interest, attorney’s fees amounting to 25% of the claim, and costs of suit.
Dissatisfied with the default judgment, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), with the case docketed as Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. versus Paquito B. Buaya (CA-GR No. 17329).

On March 30, 1990, the Supreme Court (in a decision rendered in Buaya’s favor) annulled the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings—specifically to allow the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence.
The remanded case was scheduled for a series of hearings, initially set for December 13, 1990, then reset to February 15, 1991, and again to March 14, 1991.

Citing the need to secure new counsel after the death of his previous counsel, Atty. Bartolome A. Avancena.
Requesting additional time on grounds of personal ill health.

These successive motions resulted in further resets on May 16, 1991; July 26, 1991; and November 29, 1991, with the last setting made conditional that failure to appear would be deemed a waiver of his right to present evidence.
On November 27, 1991, the petitioner’s new counsel, Atty. Manuel Maranga, filed another postponement motion, which was opposed by the respondent.
The trial court ultimately denied the motion on December 19, 1991, declaring that the petitioner had waived his right to adduce evidence.

Shortly thereafter, the respondent moved for the reinstatement of its September 17, 1987 Decision.
On March 18, 1992, the trial court reinstated the original decision, a ruling that was subsequently challenged by the petitioner through a Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. No. 27814.
The CA dismissed the petitioner’s petition on August 24, 1992, and the decision ultimately became final and executory on June 28, 1993.
The trial court, acting on a motion by the respondent, issued a Writ of Execution on October 29, 1993. The petitioner’s subsequent motions—including a Notice of Appeal and a Petition for Relief from Order—were denied, and on November 13, 1995, the trial court’s Order denying the petitioner’s relief was affirmed.

Whether a decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court, which was set aside on appeal and remanded for further proceedings, may be reinstated by the trial court and subsequently executed.
Whether the petitioner’s failure to inform his new counsel of the status of the case constitutes a “mistake and excusable negligence” warranting relief from the final and executory judgment.