G.R. No. 92163 - Enrile vs. Salazar

The dispute arose from an action for accounting of properties and money allegedly amounting to about P15 million arising from the operations of the Glory Commercial Company, a commercial partnership.
The case involved multiple defendants and petitioners. Originally, respondent Tan Put (also referred to as the plaintiff in the lower court proceedings) filed the complaint primarily against the spouses-petitioners Antonio Lim Tanhu and Dy Ochay. Later, through an amended complaint, their son Lim Teck Chuan, the other spouses-petitioners Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua and Co Oyo, and their son Eng Chong Leonardo were joined as defendants.
The amended complaint contained serious allegations stating that after the death of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan—alleged to have been the manager and a partner in the Glory Commercial Company—the petitioners fraudulently seized control of the management and misappropriated funds. It also alleged that the defendants acquired various properties in cities such as Cebu, Lapulapu, Mandaue, and municipalities like Talisay and Minglanilla.

The complaint asserted that Tan Put was the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan. It detailed that despite Po Chuan being the formal manager of the partnership, the defendants took advantage through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
The defendants contended that Tan Put was not legally his wife (asserting that Po Chuan was married to Ang Siok Tin with four legitimate children) and further argued that if Tan Put were filing as an heir, she lacked legal capacity.

The amended complaint alleged that by fraud and misrepresentation, petitioners induced Tan Put to execute a quitclaim relinquishing her rights in the partnership’s assets, although she never received the amount promised.
The quitclaim document, which remained in the possession of one of the defendants, became a central point of dispute in establishing whether Tan Put’s claims were barred.

Tan Put prayed for (i) an order for the accounting and delivery of her one-third share of the partnership’s assets (estimated at around P5,000,000), and (ii) attorney’s fees and damages.
The relief sought went beyond a mere accounting, extending into damages for alleged mental anguish and the costs of litigation.

During the pretrial scheduled for February 3, 1973, the two spouses (Lim Tanhu and Ng Sua) did not appear, and subsequently, the trial court declared them in default.
Following this, while the trial was proceeding for the non-defaulted defendants, Tan Put unexpectedly filed a motion on October 19, 1974 to drop the defendants Lim Teck Chuan and Eng Chong Leonardo from the complaint.

Petitioners contended that proper notice mandated under Sections 4 of Rule 15 and 9 of Rule 13 was not given to the non-defaulted defendants—notice was served too late or not at all.
The trial court, without verifying proper service, granted the motion to dismiss those defendants and subsequently held an ex parte hearing of Tan Put’s evidence.

The non-defaulted defendants, through their respective counsels, filed motions for reconsideration and motions to quash the orders rendered by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for certiorari as premature, noting that some motions (e.g., to quash the order of October 28, 1974) were still pending.
Petitioners then filed a petition with the Supreme Court to annul the series of orders—including the dismissal order of October 21, 1974 and the subsequent ex parte proceedings and judgment by default.

The trial court’s actions in “dropping” the non-defaulted defendants and proceeding ex parte were argued to have been taken without proper notice and in violation of procedural mandates.
The respondent court’s acceptance of certain motions and its reliance on the plaintiff’s (Tan Put’s) procedural maneuvers led to a judgment by default that granted relief not originally sought and ultimately prejudiced the petitioners’ rights.
The overall conduct of the trial involved controversial interpretations and misapplications of rules on default, joinder of indispensable parties, and notice requirements.

Whether respondent court violated procedural rules by dismissing the complaint against the non-defaulted defendants without timely and proper notice, particularly breaching Section 4 of Rule 15 and Section 9 of Rule 13.
Whether the absence of indispensable parties (all defendants being part of a common cause of action) rendered the ex parte hearing and the subsequent judgment legally defective.
Whether the trial court’s decision to “drop” non-defaulted defendants and proceed ex parte undermined the right of a party to be heard, thereby resulting in grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the consolidated nature of the prosecution—given the presence of a compulsory counterclaim in the defendant’s answer—required a unified judgment against all defendants rather than a segmented, one-sided decision.
Whether the procedural irregularities and deliberate maneuvers employed by Tan Put (and her counsel) justify the use of the special remedy of certiorari to annul the subsequent orders and judgments rendered by the trial court.