RODOLFO PAREDES, TITO ALAGO AND AGRIPINO BAYBAY v.

ERNESTO VERANO and COSME HINUNANGAN

Tinga, J.
12 Oct 2006
GR No. 164375
Doctrine
Remedies of defendant after plaintiff has presented ex parte for failure of defendant to appear at pre-trial;
effect of absence of counsel at the pre-trial: Failure to appear, when so required and without valid cause, shall
be cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Summary
Respondents counsel (petitioners in this case) was perpetually absent. The RTC granted ex parte presentation
of evidence on those grounds, which the SC reversed for having no basis in law.
Facts

COMPROMISE: Paredes et al. filed for the establishment of right of way against Verano et al. The
result was a judgment by compromise granting Paredes a 2-meter wide right of way in exchange for
P6,000.

BREACH: Verano later filed for specific performance, alleging that Paredes had blocked the
passageway in violation of the compromise.

ANSWER, and other pleadings: Paredes said that respondents were, like them, non-residents of the
barangay in Leyte where the right of way was established; that Hinunangan had already sold his
remaining lot to Paredes. Subsequently they filed a motion to dismiss (denied; certiorari vs order of
denial dismissed by CA and SC), and a motion for the judge to inhibit (denied).

PRE-TRIAL SET: the judge set the pre-trial for Nov 11, 2003. Petitioner Baybays counsel moved to reset
due to a schedule conflict. The RTC, informed that a settlement was underway, expressed
disappointment that petitioners counsel never showed up anyway even in the MTD cases. The pre-trial
was reset anyway. Shortly before the new date petitioners filed a manifestation of willingness to
settle together with a request for the cancellation of the hearing.

PETITIONERS COUNSEL ABSENT: Pre-trial pushed through, with the petitioners counsel absent.
Respondents were ordered to present evidence ex parte, which was contested by the petitioners.

When petitioners assailed the order, the CA dismissed it outright for failing to attach duplicate original
copies of the annexes to the petition, submitting photocopies instead, and failing to attach other
relevant pleadings. MR also denied.

CA: while it is the failure of the defendant to appear, not defendants counsel that would cause ex parte
presentation, Baybay had made it clear that he would not enter into amicable settlement without his
counsels advice. Thus the RTC judges hands were tied, he could not reward the delay and further
strain the resources and prejudice the respondents rights.
Ratio/Issues
I
On the failure to attach documents as the CAs grounds to dismiss the appeal
1

II

Held

Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon and the rules of procedure
ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not
override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims."

Whether the RTC judge abused his discretion in ordering ex parte presentation (YES)

(1) The parties penalized for failure to appear are the parties themselves and not their counsels.
(2) It wouldnt be fair to punish the petitioners for their counsels failure to appear, most especially
when there is no basis in law.
(3) The judge shouldve resorted to other remedies like (Rule 135), or administrative remedies against
the lawyer.
Petition GRANTED

Prepared by: Job de Leon [CivPro | Prof. Alfonso Cruz]