Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Supreme Court upholds denial of relief from default judgment

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    115 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from July 29, 1977. The petitioner sought to set aside a lower court order denying relief from a default judgment and allowing a writ of execution in a civil case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that while the initial representation may have been improper, the petitioner's rights were protected in subsequent appeals. The Court also noted the petition seemed intended to cause further delay.

    Original Description:

    1977

    Original Title

    Guballa v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 46537, 29 July 1977

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from July 29, 1977. The petitioner sought to set aside a lower court order denying relief from a default judgment and allowing a writ of execution in a civil case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that while the initial representation may have been improper, the petitioner's rights were protected in subsequent appeals. The Court also noted the petition seemed intended to cause further delay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    115 views2 pages

    Supreme Court upholds denial of relief from default judgment

    Uploaded by

    JanWacnang
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from July 29, 1977. The petitioner sought to set aside a lower court order denying relief from a default judgment and allowing a writ of execution in a civil case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that while the initial representation may have been improper, the petitioner's rights were protected in subsequent appeals. The Court also noted the petition seemed intended to cause further delay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    3/30/2017 G.R.No.

    L46537

    TodayisThursday,March30,2017

    CustomSearch

    RepublicofthePhilippines
    SUPREMECOURT
    Manila

    SECONDDIVISION

    G.R.No.L46537July29,1977

    JOSEGUBALLA,petitioner,
    vs.
    THEHON.EDUARDOP.CAGUIOA,RICARDOG.CARLOSandDOMINGOFORTEZA,JR.,respondents.

    SANTOS,J:

    InthispetitionforcertiorariwithPreliminaryInjunction,petitionerseekstosetasidetheOrderofrespondent
    JudgedatedJuly12,1977,denyinghisPetitionforRelieffromJudgmentandallowingawritofexecutiontoissue
    inCivilCaseNo.680VoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan.

    Thefactualantecedentsmayberecitedasfollows:

    Petitionerisanoperatorofapublicutilityvehiclewhichwasinvolved,onOctober1,1971,inanaccidentresulting
    toinjuriessustainedbyprivaterespondentDomingoFortezaJr.Asaconsequencethereof,acomplaintfor
    damageswasfiledbyFortezaagainstpetitionerwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan(BranchVIII),
    docketedasCivilCaseNo.680V.AnAnswertheretowasfiledonbehalfofpetitionerbyIrineoW.VidaJr.,ofthe
    lawfirmofVidaEnriquez,Mercado&Associates.1

    BecausepetitionerandcounselfailedtoappearatthepretrialconferenceonApril6,1972,despiteduenotice,
    petitionerwastreatedasindefaultandprivaterespondentwasallowedtopresenthisevidenceexparte.A
    decisionwasthereafterrenderedbythetrialcourtinfavorofprivaterespondentFortezaJr.AMotionfor
    Reconsiderationwasthenfiledbypetitionerseekingtheliftingoftheorderofdefault,thereopeningofthecase
    forthepresentationofhisevidenceandthesettingasideofthedecision.SaidMotionforReconsiderationwas
    signedbyPoncianoMercado,anothermemberofthelawfirm.ThesamewasdeniedbythelowerCourtand
    petitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppealsassigningthefollowingallegederrors,towit:

    a.ThattheHon.CourterredindenyingdefendantJoseGuballahisdayinCourtbydeclaringhimin
    default,itbeingcontrarytoapplicablelawandjurisprudenceonthematter

    b.ThatthisHon.Courthasnojurisdictiontohearanddecidethecase

    c.Awardofdamagesinfavorofplaintiff,moreparticularlyawardofmoraldamagesiscontraryto
    lawand

    d.Defendanthasvalid,legalandjusticiabledefenses.2

    TheappealedcasewashandledbyAtty.BenjaminBautista,anassociateofthesamelawfirm.Thedecision
    appealedfromwasaffirmedintotobytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.No.52610R.AMotionforReconsideration
    wasfiledbypetitioner,throughadifferentcounsel,Atty.IsabeloV.L.SantosII.Howeverthesamewasdeniedand
    thedecisionbecamefinalonJune29,1977andwasthenremandedtothelowerCourt,presidedbyrespondent
    Judgeforexecution.3

    AMotionforExecutionwasthereafterfiledbyprivaterespondentwiththelowerCourtwhichwasgrantedby
    respondentJudge.4

    OnJuly6,1977,petitioner,throughAtty.IsabeloV.L.Santos11,filedaPetitionforRelieffromJudgmentalleging
    hisdiscoverythatIrineoW.VidaJr.,whopreparedhisAnswertotheComplaintisnotamemberofthePhilippine
    Barandthatconsequently,hisrightshadnotbeenadequatelyprotectedandhispropertiesareindangerofbeing
    confiscatedand/orlevieduponwithoutdueprocessoflaw.5
    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/jul1977/gr_46537_1977.html 1/2
    3/30/2017 G.R.No.L46537

    InanOrderdatedJuly12,1977,respondentJudgedeniedthePetitionanddirectedtheissuanceofawritof
    executionforthereasonsthatsaidPetitionis"..aclearcaseofdilatorytacticonthepartofcounselfor
    defendantappellant..."hereinpetitioner,and,thatthegroundsreliedupon"...couldhavebeenventilatedinthe
    appealbeforetheCourtofAppeals..."6

    OnJuly19,1977,respondentDeputySheriffRicardoG.Carlos,actinguponthewritofexecution,issuedby
    respondentJudge,leviedonthreemotorvehicles,ofpetitionerforthesatisfactionofthejudgment.7

    HencetheinstantPetition.

    RespondentJudge'sforthrightdenialofthePetitionforRelieftofrustrateadilatorymaneuveriswelltakenand
    thisPetitionmustbedeniedforlackofmerit.Theallegedfactthatthepersonwhorepresentedpetitioneratthe
    initialstageofthelitigation,i.e.,thefilingofanAnswerandthepretrialproceedings,turnedouttobenota
    memberoftheBar8didnotamounttoadenialofpetitioner'sdayincourt.Itshouldbenotedthatinthesubsequent
    stagesoftheproceedings,aftertherenditionofthejudgmentbydefault,petitionerwasdulyrepresentedbybonafide
    membersoftheBarinseekingareversalofthejudgmentforbeingcontrarytolawandjurisprudenceandtheexistenceof
    valid,legalandjustifiabledefenses.Inotherwords,petitioner'srightshadbeenamplyprotectedintheproceedingsbefore
    thetrialandappellatecourtsashewassubsequentlyassistedbycounsel.Moreover,petitionerhimselfwasatfaultasthe
    orderoftreatmentasindefaultwaspredicated,notonlyontheallegedcounsel'sfailuretoattendthepretrialconferenceon
    April6,1972,butlikewiseonhisownfailuretoattendthesame,withoutjustifiablereason.Toallowthispetitionduecourse
    istocountenancefurtherdelayinaproceedingwhichhasalreadytakenwelloversixyearstoresolve,

    WHEREFORE,forlackofmerit,thePetitionforcertiorariwithPreliminaryInjunctionisherebydismissed.Thelaw
    firm"Vida,Enriquez,Mercado&Associates"of209SampaguitaBldg.,Cubao,QuezonCity,isherebyorderedto
    explain,withinten(10)daysfromnoticethisResolution,whyIrineoW.VidaJr.waspermittedtosigntheAnswer
    inCivilCaseNo.680VofCFI,Bulacan,whenheisnotamemberoftheBar.

    Fernando,(Chairman)Barredo,Antonio,AquinoandConcepcion,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

    Footnotes

    1Petition,Annex"A",pp.2224.

    2Id.,p.4.

    3Id.,p.5.

    4Id.

    5Id.,Annex"B",pp.1621.

    6Id.,Annex"C",p.25.

    7Id.,p.5.

    8Id.,Annex"D",p.26.

    TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/jul1977/gr_46537_1977.html 2/2

    You might also like