GR 117020; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117020; April 4, 2003
VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS INC. and DAMASO V. VENTURA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Viron Transportation filed a complaint for damages against respondents Pantranco and its driver, Damaso Ventura, arising from a vehicular collision. After filing their Answer with counterclaims, the case was set for pre-trial. During the initial pre-trial conference, the trial court declared respondents in default for the failure of their counsel of record to appear, despite an appearance by another lawyer representing a different counsel. The court proceeded with an ex parte presentation of evidence. Respondents subsequently filed a motion to lift the order of default, which the trial court granted.
Following the lifting of the default order, the branch clerk of court issued a notice for a hearing on May 22, 1992, with the typewritten words “Pre-Trial Conference” added. Respondents’ counsel failed to attend this hearing. The trial court again declared respondents in default, received Viron’s evidence ex parte, and later rendered a decision in favor of Viron. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring respondents in default for a second time and proceeding with an ex parte hearing after the initial default order had been lifted.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Viron’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion. The notice sent for the May 22 hearing was defective and misleading. It was a mimeographed notice for a hearing, with the words “Pre-Trial Conference” merely typewritten thereon. This did not constitute a valid notice of pre-trial under the Rules of Court. A pre-trial is a mandatory proceeding, and a clear notice specifying it as such is required to afford parties the opportunity to prepare and to consider settlement.
Since the initial order of default had been lifted, the case reverted to its pre-default status. The proper procedure was to reset the case for a genuine pre-trial conference, not to immediately declare the parties in default again based on an ambiguous notice. The second default order deprived respondents of their fundamental right to due process—specifically, the rights to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence in their defense. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment based on the ex parte proceedings was null and void. The Court of Appeals correctly remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law.