G.R. No. L-13801; August 31, 1960
PAULINA BAUTISTA, assisted by husband, DOEGRACIAS BAUTISTA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. LEONCIO DACANAY and CIPRIANO S. ALLAS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Paulina Bautista filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to collect P2,000 from defendants Leoncio Dacanay and Cipriano S. Allas based on a promissory note. Defendant Allas filed an answer, but defendant Dacanay did not and was declared in default. At the hearing, Allas failed to appear, and the court rendered a joint and several judgment against both defendants on September 2, 1957. On September 9, 1957, Allas’s counsel filed a motion to set aside the decision as to Allas, alleging a good defense and that Allas received the hearing notice only on September 3, 1957. The court granted this motion on October 22, 1957. The case was reset for hearing on November 18, 1957. Neither Allas nor his counsel appeared at this hearing, prompting the court to reinstate its September 2, 1957 decision. On December 9, 1957, Allas’s counsel filed a motion to set aside the reinstatement order, alleging non-receipt of the notice for the November 18 hearing. He attached a certificate from the Acting Postmaster of Quezon City stating that the registered letter containing the court’s order, addressed to him, remained undelivered at the Quezon City Post Office because it was not forwarded to the San Francisco Del Monte Post Office. Plaintiff’s counsel opposed the motion, arguing defendant’s counsel was negligent for not inquiring with the court about the case and for failing to follow up proceedings. The trial court denied the motion to set aside, hence this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant Allas’s motion to set aside the order reinstating the previous judgment, given the conclusive evidence that his counsel did not receive the notice of hearing due to a postal failure not attributable to counsel’s negligence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order reinstating the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The certificate from the Postmaster was conclusive evidence that counsel for defendant Allas did not receive the order setting the case for hearing on November 18, 1957. The failure of delivery was due to the Quezon City Post Office’s error in not forwarding the registered letter to the correct station (San Francisco Del Monte Post Office). This failure could not be attributed to any negligence on the part of defendant’s counsel. The court, having chosen the post office as its agent for notification, could not impute the agent’s failure to the defendant’s counsel. The refusal to set aside the reinstatement order amounted to a denial of the defendant’s right to be heard.