G.R. No. L-46537. July 29, 1977.
JOSE GUBALLA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. EDUARDO P. CAGUIOA, RICARDO G. CARLOS and DOMINGO FORTEZA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Guballa was the defendant in a damages case (Civil Case No. 680-V) before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, arising from a vehicular accident involving his public utility vehicle and private respondent Domingo Forteza Jr. The initial Answer for Guballa was filed by Irineo W. Vida Jr. of the law firm Vida, Enriquez, Mercado & Associates. Due to the failure of Guballa and his counsel to appear at the pretrial conference despite notice, the trial court declared Guballa in default, allowed Forteza to present evidence ex parte, and rendered a judgment against Guballa.
Guballa, through other members of the same law firm, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising errors including the propriety of the default order and the award of damages. The appeal was handled by another associate, Atty. Benjamin Bautista. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, filed through a new counsel, Atty. Isabelo V.L. Santos II, was also denied, and the decision became final. Upon remand, the trial court, presided by respondent Judge Eduardo P. Caguioa, granted Forteza’s motion for execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Guballa’s Petition for Relief from Judgment, which was based on the alleged discovery that Irineo W. Vida Jr., who signed the initial Answer, was not a member of the Philippine Bar.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the respondent Judge’s denial of the Petition for Relief. The Court ruled that the alleged fact that the initial Answer was prepared by a non-lawyer did not constitute a denial of due process or a valid ground for relief from a final judgment. The legal logic is clear: Guballa’s rights were amply protected in subsequent proceedings where he was represented by bona fide members of the Bar. After the default judgment, his Motion for Reconsideration and his appeal to the Court of Appeals were handled by licensed attorneys from the same firm and later by independent counsel, who fully ventilated his defenses on the merits, including challenging the default order and the damages awarded.
The Court emphasized that the default order was predicated not only on the alleged counsel’s absence but also on Guballa’s own failure to attend the pretrial without justification. To grant relief on the stated ground would countenance a dilatory tactic in a case already pending for over six years. The Petition for Relief was correctly seen as an attempt to reopen a final and executed judgment on a technicality that did not go to the heart of a fair hearing. The Supreme Court also directed the law firm involved to explain why a non-lawyer was permitted to sign the pleading.