Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48088)
Factual Background
The case revolves around a dispute originating from the establishment of a right of way, initiated by the petitioners against the respondents. The complaint, labeled Civil Case No. 2767, reached a Compromise Agreement on 26 April 1994, wherein the respondent Hinunangan allowed a two-meter-wide right of way to petitioners for a payment of P6,000. In 1999, alleging that the petitioners violated this agreement, the respondents filed a complaint for specific performance and damages, under Civil Case No. R-3 111. The petitioners denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the respondents were not residents of the area where the right of way was located.
Procedural History
After the respondents' motion to dismiss was denied by the RTC, the petitioners sought to appeal this decision but were unsuccessful. During the pre-trial set for 11 November 2003, the petitioners, while present, were without their counsel, and an unfavorable remark was made by the RTC regarding the counsel's absence. Following multiple reschedulings of the hearing due to various motions, the residents’ counsel presented a Manifestation of Willingness to Settle, yet the pre-trial occurred anyways on 23 January 2004 with only a portion of the petitioners present but without their lawyer. The RTC then allowed the respondents to present evidence ex parte, which led to the petitioners filing a motion for reconsideration, subsequently denied by the RTC.
Court of Appeals Findings
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners, mainly due to procedural shortcomings in their filings. The court remarked that while Section 5, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that the failure of the defendant to appear allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte, in this case, petioner Baybay indicated that he would not engage in a settlement without consulting his counsel. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that this created an impasse that restricted the trial court's options, concluding that the RTC acted within its discretion.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed with the rulings of the RTC and Court of Appeals. It underscored that the absence of counsel at pre-trial does not in itself authorize a judge to declare a defendant in default or to permit ex parte presentation of evidence. It emphasized the constitutional guarantee of due process, stipulating that no one should be deprived of property without legal justification. The Court noted that under the procedural rules, a judgment of default would only apply when the party, not merely their counsel, fails to appear.
Rationale on Pre-Trial Procedure
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the relevant sections of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It articulated that the duty to appear at pre-trial lies with both the parties and their counsels, but the penalties for non-appearance apply strictly to the parties involved. The Court stated unequiv
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48088)
Case Background
- The case revolves around a legal dispute regarding a right of way established through a Compromise Agreement dated April 26, 1994.
- Petitioners (Rodolfo Paredes, Tito Alago, and Agripino Baybay, Sr.) filed a complaint against respondents (Ernesto Verano and Cosme Hinunangan) for the establishment of a right of way in Civil Case No. 2767 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
- Respondent Cosme Hinunangan granted a two-meter-wide right of way to petitioners in exchange for P6,000.00.
- Respondents subsequently filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against petitioners on September 28, 1999, alleging that petitioners had blocked the passageway.
Procedural History
- Petitioners denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, which was denied by Judge Bethany G. Kapili.
- Petitioners sought to elevate the denial to the Court of Appeals and subsequently to the Supreme Court but were unsuccessful.
- Pre-trial was initially scheduled for April 24, 2003, but was rescheduled multiple times due to various reasons, including the absence of parties.
Pre-Trial Events
- On November 11, 2003, during the scheduled pre-trial, petitioners' counsel was absent, although all petitioners were present.
- The RTC noted