Case Digest (G.R. No. 116845)
Facts:
The case involves a dispute between petitions and spouses Ricardo and Nicolasa Bembo (petitioners) and the Pangasinan Development Bank (respondent). The legal proceedings began when the petitioners sought declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, located in Dagupan City. Initially, a pretrial conference was scheduled for September 1, 1993, but it was postponed to October 1, 1993, to allow the petitioners to amend their complaint. This conference was again rescheduled to October 27, 1993, as the petitioners' counsel had to attend a medical examination in Metro Manila. However, no pretrial occurred on that date either, due to the presiding judge being unavailable while attending the World Law Conference in Manila. Subsequently, on November 9, 1993, Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa issued an order designating December 6, 1993, as the new date for the pretrial, directing the clerk of court to notify both parties and their counsel. Unfortunately, it appeared that only theCase Digest (G.R. No. 116845)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioners, Ricardo and Nicolasa Bembo, filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 41) at Dagupan City.
- The petition involved the declaration of default of the private respondent, Pangasinan Development Bank, due to its nonappearance at the pretrial conference.
- Chronology of Pretrial Scheduling and Proceedings
- The pretrial conference was originally scheduled on September 1, 1993, but was reset on October 1, 1993 to allow the petitioners to amend their complaint.
- The October 1, 1993 conference was again postponed due to the petitioners’ counsel needing to undergo a medical examination in Metro Manila, resulting in a new schedule of October 27, 1993.
- The October 27, 1993 pretrial did not materialize as the presiding judge, Hon. Erna Falloran Aliposa, was in Manila attending a World Law Conference.
- The December 6, 1993 Pretrial Conference
- On November 9, 1993, Judge Aliposa issued an order setting “the hearing of this case” for December 6, 1993, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon.
- The order directed the clerk of court to notify the parties and their counsels; however, it appears that only the counsel received the notice, while the parties did not.
- The notice referred to the proceeding as a “hearing,” which later became a point of contention regarding whether it should have explicitly been termed a "pretrial."
- During the pretrial on December 6, 1993, private respondent and its counsel were absent, prompting Judge Deodoro J. Sison to declare the private respondent in default.
- The trial court authorized the petitioners to present their evidence ex parte on December 27, 1993.
- Private Respondent’s Motion and Arguments
- Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, with counsel explaining the absence based on instructions given by Judge Aliposa.
- On December 3, 1993, counsel was informed by Judge Aliposa that a new date would be set because she had been detailed to the RTC of Makati.
- Counsel, having other court obligations and relying on the judge’s information, advised his client that personal appearance on December 6 was unnecessary.
- Counsel characterized their nonappearance as resulting from excusable neglect, supported by his rendition of events and the lack of direct notice to the respondent.
- The motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.
- Procedural Posture and Appellate Decision
- Subsequent to the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the private respondent petitioned for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals’ Third Division set aside the trial court’s order declaring default, emphasizing:
- The failure to send proper notice of the pretrial directly to the parties, referencing decisions such as Pineda v. Court of Appeals and Patalinhug v. Peralta.
- The notice sent on November 9, 1993 was for a “hearing” and not explicitly a “pretrial.”
- The appellate court noted the policy to discourage judgments by default, particularly given that the private respondent’s defense appeared prima facie meritorious.
- Petitioners’ Contention
- Petitioners argued that the default order was proper because:
- The order of the trial court referred to a “hearing,” and no copy of the order was served directly on the parties.
- Private respondent’s counsel’s failure to appear was not due to a lack of notice but was a matter of excusable neglect on his part.
- They further contended that due to the actual knowledge of the pretrial by both counsel and the private respondent, the technical defect in the notice was immaterial.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court properly declared the private respondent in default despite the alleged defect in notice delivery.
- Did the fact that notice was sent only to counsel—referring ambiguously to a “hearing” rather than a “pretrial” conference—invalidate the default declaration?
- Should the actual knowledge of the pretrial by both parties and counsel override the technical defect in the notice?
- Whether the private respondent’s counsel’s absence constituted excusable neglect given the information relayed by Judge Aliposa.
- Could the reliance on the judge’s assurance regarding a rescheduled pretrial justify the nonappearance on December 6, 1993?
- Is the counsel’s failure to attend, while other scheduling adjustments were in process, sufficient to merit annulment of the default order by the appellate court?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)