Case Summary (G.R. No. L-35102)
Antecedent Facts
The Macaraigs filed a complaint against Borlongan for damages due to an alleged breach of contract. Following the joining of issues, the presiding judge scheduled a pre-trial for October 27, 1970. On that date, both Borlongan and his attorney failed to appear, resulting in Borlongan being declared in default upon the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence ex-parte on October 29, 1970.
Motion to Set Aside Default
On May 27, 1971, Borlongan filed a motion to set aside the default order, asserting that he had not received notice of the pre-trial date until May 13, 1971. He claimed this lack of notice was due to accident or mistake and argued that the default order was issued without adequate proof of notice to him and his counsel. Furthermore, Borlongan contended that he possessed meritorious defenses and valid counterclaims against the Macaraigs.
Opposition and Ruling of Trial Court
The Macaraigs opposed Borlongan's motion, arguing that he failed to collect the notices sent to him by the Manila post office, thereby implying his fault in the lack of notice. On June 19, 1971, the trial judge denied Borlongan's motion to set aside the default, as did the judge in response to Borlongan's oral motion for reconsideration.
Petition for Certiorari
Subsequently, Borlongan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition, stating that while an order declaring a party in default is interlocutory and not appealable, the denial of a motion to set aside such an order is indeed appealable. The court held that Borlongan had an adequate remedy available through an appeal.
Legal Basis and Arguments
Borlongan referenced the case of Matute vs. Court of Appeals, arguing that a party illegally or improvidently declared in default may not be restricted to appealing but could pursue a certiorari petition. However, the core issue before the Court of Appeals was whether Borlongan had been illegally or improvidently declared in default, which the court ultimately found he had not.
Evidence of Proper Service
The respondents provided a detailed account of efforts made to notify Borlongan, including the sending of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-35102)
Case Background
- This case involves a petition for review of a decision made by the defunct Court of Appeals.
- The petition was filed by Antonio Borlongan against the respondents, which include the Honorable Court of Appeals, Judge E. Lustre, and the spouses Dioscoro and Susana Macaraig.
- The original case arose from a complaint for damages filed by the Macaraigs against Borlongan due to an alleged breach of contract.
Procedural History
- The Court of First Instance of Quezon City scheduled a pre-trial for October 27, 1970, after the issues were joined.
- On the date of the pre-trial, Borlongan and his counsel failed to appear, leading to the plaintiffs’ motion declaring Borlongan in default.
- Following this, the plaintiffs presented their evidence ex-parte on October 29, 1970.
Motion to Set Aside Default
- On May 27, 1971, Borlongan filed a motion to set aside the order of default, claiming he only received notice of it on May 13, 1971.
- The motion included assertions that neither Borlongan nor his counsel received notice of the pre-trial due to accident or mistake, and that the order of default was issued without p