Case Digest (G.R. No. 170427)
Facts:
Roberto R. David v. Judge Carmelita S. Gutierrez-Fruelda, G.R. No. 170427, January 30, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, Acting C.J., writing for the Court (Corona, Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Brion, JJ., concurring).On September 17, 2004 private respondents Vicente L. Panlilio, Roberto L. Panlilio, Remedios P. Papa, Adelwisa P. Fernandez, and Lourdes D. Panlilio (represented by an attorney-in-fact) filed a complaint for accounting, reconveyance and damages with prayer for preliminary attachment against petitioner Roberto R. David, his wife Marissa David, and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. The complaint alleged that petitioner had exceeded a special power of attorney, converted agricultural lands to other uses, registered and mortgaged parcels in his name, failed to account for proceeds, and absconded.
Service of summons on petitioner failed because he was abroad; the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 43 ordered service by publication on January 24, 2005, with the last publication on March 19, 2005. Private respondents moved to declare petitioner in default when he did not answer within 60 days after the last publication. Petitioner filed a motion for 15-day extension to file an answer (July 14, 2005) and opposed the motion to declare him in default.
On July 15, 2005 the RTC declared petitioner in default, denied the extension, and allowed private respondents to present evidence ex parte as to petitioner while proceeding with presentation against Marissa David. Petitioner then filed a motion to lift the order of default and again sought a 15-day extension. The RTC denied that motion on September 21, 2005, holding that petitioner’s motion failed to comply with Section 3(b), Rule 9 (it was not under oath, lacked an affidavit of merit, and contained no allegation that failure to answer resulted from fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence) and scheduled pre-trial/ex-parte presentation for October 7, 2005.
Petitioner directly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, alleging (a) defects in service by publication (arguing use of a registry receipt instead of a registry return card and lack of proof of mailing), and (b) that the RTC failed to specify a reasonable time not less than sixty days under Section 15, Rule 14 for extraterritorial service. Private respondents argued the RTC did not commit grave abuse because petitioner’s motion to lift default failed to satisfy the statutory and rule-base...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner’s voluntary motions before the RTC constitute a waiver of any defect in service, thereby vesting the RTC with jurisdiction over his person?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to lift the order of default for noncompliance with the requisites o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)