Case Digest (G.R. No. 183398)
Facts:
Clodualda D. Daaco v. Valeriana Rosaldo Yu, G.R. No. 183398, June 22, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Clodualda D. Daaco sued respondent Valeriana Rosaldo Yu, Faustina Daaco, and the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City for annulment of title, recovery of property under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28120, and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tacloban City (docketed in the record variously as Civil Case No. 2006-12-16 and Civil Case No. 2006-02-16).
After pleadings and preliminary matters, the RTC set the pre-trial on September 5, 2007 for hearing on October 4, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. Respondent moved to dismiss after petitioner and/or her purported counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial; the trial court granted dismissal by Order dated October 4, 2007. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing she was not properly notified because she received notice only at 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2007 (about 15 hours before the scheduled conference), and that an outstanding Motion to Consider the Answer as Not Filed (filed October 4, 2006) remained unresolved.
The RTC denied reconsideration by Order dated December 27, 2007, finding (inter alia) that petitioner and her non‑licensed‑lawyer son had actually received notice on October 3, 2007; that petitioner had ample opportunity before the pre-trial to prepare and had actively filed motions earlier; and that the October 4, 2006 motion was inconsistent with an earlier Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and thus not cognizable. Petitioner pursued this petition for review on certiorari under Section 2(c), Ru...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s action for failure to appear at the pre-trial contrary to law, rules, or existing jurisprudence (procedural issue)?
- Did the alleged short notice (receipt of notice about 15 hours before the pre-trial) or the RTC’s references to petitioner’s “counsel” render the dismissal void or infirm (substantive notic...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)