G.R. No. 142066; February 6, 2004
Criselda Leonardo and Celing Martinez, petitioners, vs. S.T. Best, Inc., respondent.

FACTS

Respondent S.T. Best, Inc. filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for injunction against petitioners, alleging that their illegal quarrying activities on an adjacent property undermined the foundation of respondent’s subdivision lots. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order after a hearing which petitioners and their counsel failed to attend. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and subsequently an Answer. However, at the hearings for the preliminary injunction and the pre-trial conferences, petitioners and their counsel repeatedly failed to appear despite due notices, as evidenced by registry return cards. The trial court initially granted a motion for reconsideration after petitioners claimed they believed a settlement had been reached, but they again failed to attend the reset pre-trial.
After petitioners’ second default for non-appearance at pre-trial, the trial court allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte. The court rendered a default judgment, ordering petitioners to pay substantial damages. Petitioners later filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, claiming they were denied due process as they never received the pre-trial notices and were not informed of the default judgment by their former counsel. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment, thereby upholding the trial court’s default judgment, despite petitioners’ claim of denial of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the proper application of procedural rules and the essence of due process. Due process simply requires an opportunity to be heard, not that the party actually seizes that opportunity. The registry return cards conclusively proved that petitioners and their counsel received the notices for the pre-trial conferences. Their repeated and unjustified failure to attend these mandatory proceedings, despite being afforded multiple chances, constituted gross negligence. This negligence binds the client.
The trial court acted in strict accordance with Section 5, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes declaring a party in default and allowing ex parte presentation of evidence upon failure to appear at pre-trial. Petitioners were given ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings and present their defense. Their own inaction, not a lack of notice, led to the default judgment. A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 requires extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction; mere errors of judgment or negligence of counsel do not qualify. Here, jurisdiction was properly acquired, and the alleged negligence of counsel was not the kind of extrinsic fraud that prevented petitioners from asserting their claim. Thus, no denial of due process occurred.