GR 78051; (November, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78051 November 8, 1989
ISAGANI M. JUNGCO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and G. A. MACHINERIES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
G.A. Machineries, Inc. (GAMI) filed a complaint for collection against Isagani M. Jungco. Jungco filed his answer, and the case proceeded to pre-trial. After several resettings due to judicial reorganization and reassignments, the case was set for pre-trial on March 22, 1985, before Judge Johnico Serquina. Jungco failed to appear at this hearing. The trial court, finding that Jungco’s counsel had been duly notified via a notice of hearing with a corresponding return card, declared him as in default and allowed GAMI to present evidence ex-parte. Jungco filed a motion for reconsideration and later a motion to set aside the order of default, which were both denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed these orders.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in declaring Jungco as in default for his failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Appearance at a pre-trial conference is mandatory under Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court. Section 2 of the same Rule grants the trial court discretion to declare a party who fails to appear as in default. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual finding, based on the return card, that Jungco’s counsel was duly notified of the March 22, 1985 pre-trial setting. Factual findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect.
The Court distinguished Jungco’s situation from cases where a defendant is declared in default for failure to file an answer. Here, Jungco had already filed his answer but was declared “as in default” for non-appearance at pre-trial. Consequently, his invocation of a “meritorious defense” to set aside the order was misplaced. His defenses were already of record in his answer, and the proper remedy was a motion for reconsideration of the default order, not a motion to set it aside based on meritorious defenses. The Court also noted that the subsequent judgment by default was already on appeal before the Court of Appeals, where Jungco could raise his objections. The petition was denied.