G.R. No. L-3027 - Herdez vs. Clapis

The case is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Davao, which denied a motion to set aside an order of default entered against the defendants.
The defendants/appellants were involved in an action for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, and damages in the justice of the peace court of Tagum, Davao, in which they lost on all counts except for damages, which had not been conclusively proved.

The defendants, through their attorneys Parreno, Parreno, and Flores (with their law office in Bacolod City), filed a notice of appeal from the justice of the peace court to the Court of First Instance.
On October 18, 1947, these same attorneys received from the clerk of the Court of First Instance a notice confirming the receipt of the record and reminding them that the period for filing an answer or demurrer under the Rules of Court had commenced as of that receipt date.
No answer or demurrer was filed within the prescribed period.

On November 18, 1947, at the hearing set for that day, Attorney Juan B. Espolong—signing as co-attorney for the defendants—filed a written motion to dismiss.

The motion alleged, among other grounds, that determination of the right to possession of the property should be entrusted to the government agency handling its disposition.
It further contended that the property in question was a dummy land over which the plaintiffs had no interest.

The plaintiffs were furnished with a copy of the motion to dismiss on the very day of the hearing, prompting their attorneys to request a postponement.
The case was rescheduled for November 27, 1947, during which the plaintiffs filed a written opposition to the motion to dismiss and moved for a continuance so that the merits of the case could be duly heard.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for continuance and, on December 10, 1947, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as lacking merit.

On December 10, 1947, after denying the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ attorneys moved—this time orally—for the adjudication of the defendants as in default due to their failure to file an answer within the required period.
The court found this oral motion well-founded and subsequently entered default judgment against the defendants.

Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court mandates that within fifteen days after service of summons, the defendant must file an answer containing a concise statement of the ultimate facts of their defense.
Section 7 of Rule 40 requires that upon docketing the appeal, the complaint is deemed reproduced in the court of first instance and that the clerk of court is duty-bound to notify the parties (by registered mail) of such reproduction; the period for filing an answer then begins on the receipt date of this notice.
The defendants/appellants challenged the validity of the notice issued by the clerk to their attorneys in Bacolod City rather than to them personally in Davao, arguing that:

The justice of the peace court is not a court of record and thus makes the attorneys’ appearance in that forum insufficient to confer formal appearance in the higher court.
The notice should have been sent directly to the defendants, not their attorneys, thereby nullifying the reliance on attorney service.

The court observed that the attorneys who originally represented the defendants in the justice of the peace court continued to act for them upon appeal in the Court of First Instance.
Evidence showed that Attorney Geronimo R. Flores, along with his colleagues, consistently acted as counsel in both courts.
The court criticized the defendants’ attorneys for their professional carelessness in failing to file the necessary pleadings, despite being aware of—or even causing—the transmission of the record to the higher court.
It was noted that, if the attorneys had been convinced the notice was misdirected, they ought to have immediately notified the clerk of court as a matter of protective diligence toward their clients.

The decision referenced analogous cases, such as Mapua vs. Mendoza, holding that even if a motion (like the motion to dismiss) is pending, a judgment by default entered for a pleading filed out of time would not constitute reversible error.
The court affirmed that the entire controversy stemmed from attorney negligence and procedural lapses.
Consequently, the lower court's order affirming the default judgment was upheld, and double costs of the appeal were imposed, to be assessed jointly and severally against Attorneys Parreno, Parreno, and Flores.

Whether the notice of record receipt should have been sent to the defendants personally in Davao or whether it was proper service to the attorneys in Bacolod City.
Whether the entry of appeal by the attorneys in the justice of the peace court automatically constituted their formal appearance in the Court of First Instance, making attorney service of notice valid.
Whether the existence of a pending motion to dismiss (allegedly filed out of time) could suspend or alter the commencement of the fifteen-day period for filing an answer or demurrer.
Whether the plaintiffs’ filing of an opposition to the motion to dismiss amounted to a waiver of their right to request a judgment by default.