GR 178789; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178789 ; November 14, 2012
NATIVIDAD LIM, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, SPOUSES ROBERTO LL. ARCINUE and ARABELA ARCINUE, Respondents.
FACTS
NPC filed an expropriation case against petitioner Natividad Lim. The RTC granted NPC a writ of possession. Subsequently, respondent spouses Arcinue filed a motion for leave to admit a complaint-in-intervention, claiming ownership of one of the expropriated lots. The court admitted the complaint and ordered Lim and NPC to file their answers. After both failed to answer for ten months, the Arcinues filed a motion for judgment by default.
Lim moved to expunge this motion for default, arguing it lacked the required written explanation under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a resort to service by registered mail instead of personal service must be accompanied by an explanation. The RTC denied her motion, noting that her counsel had admitted receiving the motion ten days before its scheduled hearing, curing the procedural defect. The RTC subsequently issued an order of default against Lim.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC’s order of default against Lim.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled there was no grave abuse of discretion. First, the Court clarified that under Section 4, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an answer to a complaint-in-intervention is mandatory, not permissive. Lim’s failure to file the required answer could therefore validly result in a default order. The trial court had been liberal, treating her motion for reconsideration as a motion to lift the default, but she failed to appear at the hearing or demonstrate that her failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
Second, regarding the lack of explanation for service by registered mail, the Court held that while Section 11, Rule 13 requires such an explanation and states a violation “may be cause to consider the paper as not filed,” the sanction is not automatic. The RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to expunge the motion. The pivotal fact was that Lim’s counsel admitted receiving the motion ten days prior to the hearing. The purpose of the rule—to ensure timely receipt and prevent hearings from proceeding ex-parte—was thus satisfied. The Court emphasized that the rule prefers personal service but does not prohibit registered mail when it effectively achieves timely notice, as in this case. The petition was denied.