GR 120496; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120496 July 17, 1996
FIVE STAR BUS CO., INC. and CARLOS SALONGA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KALOOKAN CITY, BR. 129 and PEDRO and LYDIA SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Pedro and Lydia Santos filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against petitioners Five Star Bus Co., Inc. and its driver, Carlos Salonga, following the death of their son in a vehicular accident. The trial court set the case for pre-trial and ordered the parties to file pre-trial briefs. Notice was sent to petitioners’ counsel of record, Atty. Arnel Nadais. On the pre-trial date, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared, nor was a pre-trial brief filed. Consequently, the trial court declared petitioners in default and allowed the respondents to present evidence ex parte, after which a decision was rendered awarding damages to the respondents.
Petitioners moved to set aside the order of default, explaining that Atty. Nadais had resigned as house counsel before the pre-trial and that their new counsel received the records only after the pre-trial date. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but additionally awarded moral damages to the respondents, who had not appealed the original judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in declaring petitioners in default and whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages to respondents who did not appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the declaration of default. The negligence of counsel binds the client. Atty. Nadais remained the counsel of record as no formal withdrawal was filed with the court; therefore, notice to him was notice to the petitioners. The trial court acted within its discretion in declaring a default for failure to attend the pre-trial and file a brief. The subsequent scheduling of ex parte evidence days later, rather than immediately, afforded petitioners an opportunity to seek reconsideration, which they did, and thus no denial of due process occurred.
However, the Court deleted the appellate court’s award of moral damages. An appellee who has not appealed from a judgment cannot seek its modification or reversal to obtain further affirmative relief. Since the respondents did not appeal the trial court’s decision, which did not include moral damages, they were bound by its terms. The Court of Appeals erred in granting an additional award not sought in the appellees’ brief for the purpose of maintaining the judgment. The decision was thus affirmed with the modification deleting the moral damages award.