G.R. No. 2366
Date: September 29, 1905
Parties:
– Plaintiff-Appellee: Patricia Abolencia
– Defendant-Appellant: Guillermo Maaño
FACTS:
1. On October 16, 1902, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Patricia Abolencia.
2. On November 3, 1902, the defendant, Guillermo Maaño, filed a motion for a new trial.
3. The hearing for the motion was initially continued to the next term of the court. On April 18, 1903, the court scheduled the hearing for April 25, 1903, and ordered that the parties be notified.
4. On April 25, 1903, the defendant failed to appear, and the court denied the motion for a new trial. The defendant excepted to this order.
5. The defendant appealed, assigning as error the lack of due notification regarding the hearing date for his motion for a new trial. He argued that notice should have been served in accordance with Sections 390 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the service of original process.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant was duly notified of the hearing date for his motion for a new trial, such that the denial of the motion due to his non-appearance was proper.
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court, holding that the defendant was sufficiently notified.
1. Applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court ruled that Sections 390 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure pertain only to the service of original process to bring a defendant into court upon the filing of a complaint. These provisions do not apply to notices for hearings on motions filed after the case has already commenced.
2. Sufficiency of Notice: The record showed that the clerk issued notices to the sheriff regarding the hearing date. Although the sheriff did not file a return proving service, the Court noted that a calendar of cases to be heard during the April term was prepared and included this case. The defendant did not demonstrate that he lacked actual notice of the hearing scheduled for April 25, 1903.
3. Presumption of Regularity: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court presumed that the defendant was informed of the hearing date as directed by the court. Thus, there was sufficient compliance with the notification requirement.
The denial of the motion for a new trial was upheld. Costs were assessed against the defendant-appellant.
Concurring Justices: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson.
