Title
Lim vs. National Power Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 178789
Decision Date
Nov 14, 2012
NPC expropriated land; Lim failed to answer intervention, leading to default. RTC and CA upheld, SC affirmed, citing mandatory compliance with procedural rules.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126881)

Facts and Case Development

The NPC initiated legal proceedings on February 8, 1995, with the RTC of Lingayen ordering the service of summons on Lim through her tenant on February 20, 1995. Following this, NPC was granted a writ of possession on March 1, 1995, after depositing the provisional value of the property. Subsequently, on April 24, 1995, Lim, represented by her husband, Delfin, filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the case and suspend the writ of possession, challenging the RTC's jurisdiction and the nature of the action. The RTC denied her motions.

On December 6, 1996, the respondents Arcinue filed a motion to intervene, claiming ownership of Lot 2374. The court allowed their intervention and required both NPC and Lim to respond, which neither did by the given deadline of 10 days. As a result, the Arcinue spouses moved for judgment by default on December 7, 1998, citing the original parties' failure to file answers.

Legal Proceedings and Default Order

In response, Lim attempted to have the motion for judgment by default expunged, arguing that it lacked a necessary explanation for using registered mail instead of personal service. However, at the hearing, Lim's counsel failed to appear. The RTC subsequently entered a default order against both Lim and NPC, asserting that despite the procedural oversight, Lim's counsel had received formal notice of the motion well before the hearing date.

Lim's motion for reconsideration against the default order was denied, prompting her to petition the Court of Appeals (CA), where the default ruling was affirmed on March 23, 2007. After further proceedings, the CA's denial of her reconsideration led to her filing for review before the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

The central issue was whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC's default order against Lim for failing to respond to the complaint-in-intervention.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court referenced Section 4, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that an answer to a complaint-in-intervention is now mandatory. Consequently, Lim's failure to answer renders her subject to default. The RTC had exercised discretion favorably towards Lim, allowing a hearing for her motion to lift the default, but she did not demonstrate that her inaction resulted from circumstances such as fraud or mistake and failed t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.