G.R. No. L-8338; January 16, 1914
SONG FO & CO., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMINA CHIONG VELOSO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants-appellants, residents of Cebu, appealed from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying their motion for a new trial after a default judgment was entered against them for P2,242.43. Their motion was based on lack of notice of the trial date. The case was placed on the trial calendar for October 9, 1911, pursuant to a local rule of practice in the Manila court whereby the clerk, after placing pending and at-issue cases on the calendar, did not send notices to attorneys or litigants, and non-receipt of such notices was not considered an excuse for non-appearance. No actual notice was sent to the defendants or their counsel, and it did not appear that they were aware of this local rule.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial, given that the defendants and their counsel, without actual notice of the trial date and without knowledge of the local rule dispensing with notice, were deprived of their right to be heard.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. The Court held that one of the most elementary rules of justice is that parties are entitled to be present at trial and to receive reasonable notice of the trial date. The local rule of the Manila court, which dispensed with actual notice, had not been validly promulgated under Section 6 of Act No. 190 , which required uniform rules for all Courts of First Instance. The rule was not uniform and conflicted with practices in other courts. The Court ruled that, absent affirmative proof that the defendants or their counsel knew of the rule, it could not deprive them of their right to notice. Thus, proceeding to trial without notice was reversible error. The Court also held that payment of the judgment under an execution issued by the trial court did not constitute a voluntary settlement barring the right to a new trial or appeal.