Title
Supreme Court
Victory Liner Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 125034
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1998
Victory Liner declared in default after counsel arrived late to pre-trial; Supreme Court upheld ruling, citing lack of special authority and insufficient justification for delay.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76902)

Relevant Dates

  • June 22, 1994: Action filed by Viron Transportation Company.
  • March 27, 1995: Victory Liner Inc. filed an Answer to the Complaint.
  • April 27, 1995: Original pre-trial schedule.
  • May 23, 1995: Rescheduled pre-trial when petitioner failed to appear.
  • May 26, 1995: The trial court denied the petitioner's motion to lift the order of default.
  • June 9, 1995: The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.
  • May 22, 1996: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari.

Procedural History

The petitioner, after being declared in default due to its failure to appear during the pre-trial conference on May 23, 1995, sought to have the order lifted citing heavy traffic as the reason for the tardiness of its counsel, Atty. Atilano B. Lim. The Metropolitan Trial Court denied the motion, asserting that the absence of both the party and the counsel was inadequate grounds for lifting the default. Victory Liner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Issue at Hand

The primary issue for resolution was whether the Court of Appeals exhibited grave abuse of discretion in affirming the lower court's orders of default and denying motions filed by Victory Liner to rectify the situation. The specific questions posed by the petitioner included the deprivation of the right to due process and the trial court's presumption regarding the lack of special authority for the counsel's representation.

Legal Framework

Section 2, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court is critical here, stipulating that a party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be declared in default. The courts have underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the mandated presence of parties and their counsel at pre-trial conferences to ensure effective and orderly judicial proceedings.

Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court affirmed that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that Atty. Lim had a special power of attorney to represent Victory Liner during the pre-trial, which is a prerequisite whenever legal representation is required at such proceedings. The assertion revolved around the burden of proof resting with the party making the claim; thus, the claim of traffic congestion did not present a compelling reason to warrant the lifting of the default.

Implications of Findings

The ruling reiterates that procedural rules must be followed strictly as they uphold the integrity of judicial processes. The obligation of par

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.