G.R. No. L-53664 July 24, 1981
CELEDONIA M. SAMSON, the HEIRS OF SALVADOR SAMSON and BAYSIDE, INC., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL ROMILLO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXVII of the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Pasay City, the CITY SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY, EDUARDO FIGUERAS and JADE GARDEN ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Eduardo Figueras filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against spouses Salvador and Celedonia Samson. Celedonia, then abroad, filed an answer and a motion to dismiss regarding Salvador, who had died. The motion remained unresolved. The pre-trial conference was postponed multiple times at the defense counsel’s instance. The trial court’s order of December 21, 1977, resetting the pre-trial to January 17, 1978, directed that the parties and counsel be notified. The registry return receipt shows defense counsel received this order only on January 17, 1978, the very day of the pre-trial. On that date, with no appearance for the defendants, the court declared Celedonia in default, allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence, and later rendered a judgment against her. A writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy of properties, including the Bayside Nightclub, which Figueras bought. Non-parties, including the heirs of Salvador and Bayside, Inc., intervened. Celedonia, upon her return, filed an omnibus motion to set aside the default and subsequent proceedings, which was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Celedonia Samson in default for the January 17, 1978, pre-trial conference.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The declaration of default was invalid due to lack of proper notice. For a valid default order for failure to appear at a pre-trial, notice must be duly served upon both the party and counsel. The registry return card proved defense counsel received notice only on the day of the pre-trial itself, making the court’s finding of “due notification” on that same day impossible. Furthermore, there was no indubitable proof that the parties themselves, Celedonia and the deceased Salvador, were ever served notice. The mere handwritten notation on the court order was insufficient without a registry return card. The fact that the pre-trial had been previously postponed did not excuse the lack of formal notice, as there was no proof the parties were present in court when the resetting was made. Given the serious allegations and the involvement of non-parties due to the execution, justice required a full-dress hearing on the merits. The Supreme Court rescinded the order of default and all subsequent proceedings and remanded the case for resolution of the pending motion to dismiss and proper pre-trial.