Sunteți pe pagina 1din 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