GR 132007; (August, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132007 , August 5, 1998.
SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. HELEN BAUTISTA RICA-FORT, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Metro Manila (Branch 260), TEAM IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., FELIX S. CO, JEFFREY C. CAL, and KING CUISIA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with a prayer for a writ of replevin against private respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque, Branch 260, presided by public respondent Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort. On August 8, 1997, private respondents filed their “Answer (with Counterclaims).” A copy was furnished to petitioner’s counsel by registered mail, but the pleading did not contain any written explanation as to why service was not made personally, as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner filed a motion to expunge the Answer and to declare private respondents in default, alleging the offices of the opposing counsel were only about 200 meters apart, making personal service practicable. The trial court denied the motion, citing liberal construction of the rules to secure a just disposition. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to expunge private respondents’ answer for violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires personal service whenever practicable and a written explanation if not done personally.
RULING
No, the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. While it clarified that under Section 11, Rule 13, personal service and filing is the general rule and mandatory whenever practicable, with a written explanation required for resorting to other modes, the trial court’s discretion to admit the pleading was sustained under the specific circumstances. The Court noted that the 1997 Rules had taken effect only on July 1, 1997, and the Answer was filed on August 8, 1997, during an early period when counsel may not have been fully aware of the new requirement. The Court condoned the violation for this reason but mandated strictest compliance with Section 11 one month from the promulgation of this Decision.