Case Summary (G.R. No. 98368)
Key Dates
The original judgment in favor of the plaintiff was entered on October 16, 1902. The defendant's motion for a new trial was filed on November 3, 1902, and the hearing for this motion was initially set for April 25, 1903.
Applicable Law
The legal framework governing this case includes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable at that time, particularly Section 390 and subsequent sections, which pertain to the processes of notification and service of original process.
Facts of the Case
The primary matter under contention was the defendant's assertion that he was not duly notified of the hearing scheduled for his motion for a new trial. The court had ordered that both parties be notified of the hearing date, which was determined to be April 25, 1903. The appellant claimed that proper notification was not accorded to him, relying on procedural statutes regarding the service of notices.
Court's Analysis of Notification
The court evaluated the appellant’s claim regarding notification, noting that the sections of the Code of Civil Procedure cited by the appellant primarily relate to the issuance and service of original processes for initiating a case, not the specific procedure of notifying parties about motions. The court found no evidence that the defendant had not been informed of the hearing date, emphasizing that notices had been issued by the court clerk and were in the hands of the sheriff.
Conclusion on the Appeal
In its ruling, the court determined that the existence of a calendar prepared at the begi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 98368)
Case Background
- The case revolves around a judgment entered on October 16, 1902, in favor of the plaintiff, Patricia Abolencia.
- Following this judgment, the defendant, Guillermo Maano, filed a motion for a new trial on November 3, 1902.
- The court decided to continue the hearing of this motion to the next term of court, specifically to April 18, 1903.
Court Proceedings
- The court scheduled the hearing of the motion for a new trial on April 25, 1903, and ordered that both parties be notified.
- On April 25, the defendant, Guillermo Maano, failed to appear in court.
- The court subsequently denied the motion for a new trial due to the defendant's absence.
Error Assignment and Defendant's Argument
- The sole error cited by the defendant was the claim that he was not duly notified regarding the hearing date for his motion for a new trial.
- The defendant argued that notification should have followed the procedures outlined in Section 390 and subsequent sections of the Cod