RULE 13 SEC 10 Land Bank v. Heirs of Alsua
Cleotilde et al are the heirs of the late Fernando Alsua, who was the registered owner of various parcels of agricultural land with an aggregate area of approximately 50 hectares situated in Albay. When the epartment of Agrarian !eform initiated proceedings to ac"uire Alsua#s properties properties via the Compulsory Compulsory Ac"uisitio Ac"uisition n $cheme under the the Comprehensive Agrarian !eform %aw, %and &an' filed a petition for the determination of (ust compensation before the !)C* sitting as a $pecial Agrarian Court however this was dismissed for failure to prosecute within reasonable length of time. A copy of the order of dismissal was sent via registered mail and actually delivered to %and &an'#s counsel on + ecember 00.
%and &an'#s counsel sought reconsideration of the order of dismissal the trial court denied the same because it was filed one day late and lac'ed merit. %&- then elevated to the Court of Appeals the issue of the timeliness of the filing of its motion for reconsideration, insisting that the copy of the order of dismissal should be deemed received upon delivery to petitioners counsel on + ecember 00 and not upon receipt by petitioners guard on duty on ++ ecember 00 citing the case of Lawin Security Services, Inc. v. NLRC , where the Court declared invalid the service of the resolution on the security guard of the building where counsel for the respondent was holding office. n said case, the Court held that service of papers should be delivered personally to the attorney or by leaving /them at his office with his cler' or with a person having charge thereof. Court of Appeals Appeals disregarded %&-#s proposition citing !ule +1, $ection 2/3 and $ection +0/4 of the !ules of Court stating that the fifteen*day period for filing the motion for reconsideration should be rec'oned from its counsels actual receipt of the order of dismissal. t explained that the purpose of this rule on service by registered mail is to place the date of receipt of pleadins! "ud#ents and processes $e%ond the po&er of the part% $ein served to deter#ine at his pleasure. ssue When is the order of dismissal deemed received6 !uling )he receipt by the security guard of the order of dismissal should be deemed receipt by petitioners counsel as well since all that the rules of procedure re"uire in regard to service by registered mail is to have the postmaster deliver the same to the addressee himself or to a person of sufficient discretion to receive the sa#e' person &ho &ould $e a$le to appreciate the i#portance of the papers delivered to hi#.
n this case, the security guard who received the copy of the order of dismissal had been accustomed to the responsibility of receiving papers on behalf of %and &an' and of actually delivering them to the intended recipient. 7oteworthy also is the fact that the security guard did not delay in handing over the order of dismissal and immediately forwarded the same to petitioners counsel the following day. %and &an' had only itself to blame for its failure to in"uire exactly when the order was received or to assume that service of the same was effected on the day it was handed over to petitioners counsel. RULE 1( SEC 11 )ara#ount *nsurance v. +rdone, )ara#ount *nsurance Corp.-)*C is the subrogee of 8aximo 8ata, the registered owner of a 9onda City sedan involved in a vehicular accident with a truc' mixer owned by A.C. +R/+E C+R)+RA2*+-AC+C and driven by respondent Fran'lin A. $uspine.
-C filed before the 8)C of 8a'ati City, a complaint for damages against AC:C. &ased on the $heriffs !eturn of $ervice, summons remained unserved on respondent $uspine, while it was served on AC+C and received $% Sa#uel /. arcoleta of its Receivin Section on April 1, 000. -C filed a 8otion to eclare AC:C ; $uspine in efault< however, on =une 2, 000, AC:C filed an :mnibus 8otion and :pposition alleging that summons was improperly served upon it because it was made to a secretarial staff who was unfamiliar with court processes< and that the summons was received by 8r. Armando C. :rdoe>, -resident and ?eneral 8anager of respondent corporation only on =une @, 000. $$B W9B)9B! )9B!B WA$ A% $B!CB :F $88:7$ :7 AC :!:7BD C:!-:!A):7. !%7? $ection ++, !ule +@ of the !ules of Court provides $BC. ++. $ervice upon domestic private (uridical entity. When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organi>ed under the laws of the -hilippines with a (uridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in*house counsel. $ection ++, !ule +@ sets out an exclusive enumeration of the officers who can receive summons on behalf of a corporation. $ervice of summons to someone other than the corporations president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, and in*house counsel, is not valid. )he new rule, as opposed to $ection +1, !ule +@ of the +E3@ !ules of Court, is
restricted! li#ited and e4clusiv e, following the rule in statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius .
Absent a manifest intent to liberalize the rule, strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is reuired! )hus, the service of summons to AC:C !eceiving $ection through $amuel . 8arcoleta is defective and not binding to said corporation. RULE 15 SEC 6 7on,ales v. Balikatan
:n scheduled hearing, ?on>ales appeared but because they failed to file their answer to the complaint, the court declared them in default and thereafter allowed the presentation of &ali'atan#s evidence ex-parte. ?on>ales appealed to the !egional )rial Court, contending that the court a quo erred when it declared them in default as they were not notified of the &ali'atan#s motion to declare them in default. ?on>ales further contend that when the respondent orally move in open court for the declaration of default due to petitioners failure to file an answer to the complaint despite their appearance in court, they were not notified thereof in contravention of the !evised !ules of Civil -rocedure which states that [i]f the efenin! party fails to answer within the ti"e allowe therefor, the court shall, upon "otion of the clai"in! party with notice to the efenin! party, an proof of such failure, eclare the efenin! party in efault. $$B W:7 notice of motions made in open court is still re"uired !%7? 7:. )he motion to declare ?on>ales in default was, to reiterate, made in open court and in their presence. &y their presence, notice to them is fairly constituted. !ule +5, $ection , which provides that /all motions shall be in writing except those made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial. As a general rule, a notice is re"uired where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion. -rinciples of natural (ustice demand that his right should not be affected without an opportunity to be heard.
Rule 18 Sec 1 B)* v. Spouses 7enuino
&an' of the -hilippine slands &-G filed a Complaint for $um of 8oneyH=udgment on the eficiency against the $pouses ?enuino before the
!egional )rial Court of 8a'ati when $ps ?enuino defaulted in the installment payments of their loans and credit accommodations. :n ecember , 00E, &- received a copy of the Answer and opted not to file any !eply. )he !egional )rial Court, in its :rder dated 8ay +4, 0+0, dismissed the case without pre(udice for lac' of interest to prosecute under !ule +4, $ection 1 of the !ules of Court. &- explained that the case folder was misplaced in the office #oe!a together with the records of terminated cases. )he assigned secretary of counsel had already left the firm, and the ban' could no longer see' an explanation for the misfiling of the case after it had been unloaded by previous counsel. )he ban' argued for the application of A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C and submits that with the issuance of A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C, I it is no loner proper to dis#iss a case for failure to prosecute startin Auust 19! 600( due to the non'filin $% the plaintiff of a otion to Set Case for )re 2rial Conference but instead the Cler' of Court should issue an :rder setting the case for -re )rial Conference.I t "uotes $spiritu, et al. v. La%aro, et al. that clarified the application of A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C to cases filed after its effectivity on August +3, 00@. )he $pouses ?enuino on the other hand submit that Inotwithstanding A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C it is the duty of the plaintiff to prosecute its action within a reasonable length of time and the failure to do so would (ustify the dismissal of the case.I $$B W:7 the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case without pre(udice on the ground of failure to prosecute when &- failed to file a motion to set case for pre*trial conference. !%7? 7:. !eading A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C together with !ule +4, $ection 1 and !ule +2, $ection + of the !ules of Court accommodates the outright dismissal of a complaint upon plaintiff:s failure to sho& "ustifia$le reason for not settin the case for pre'trial &ithin the period provided $% the Rules. A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C entitled Re& 'ropose Rule on (uielines to #e )#serve #y *rial Court +u!es an Clers of Court in the Conuct of 're-*rial an se of eposition-iscovery /easures too' effect on August +3, 00@. )his provides that Within five 5G days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre*trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. 7evertheless, nowhere in the text of A.8. 7o. 01*+*0E*$C does it remove the plaintiffJs duty under !ule +2, $ection + of the !ules of Court to set the case for
pre*trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. 7owhere does it repeal !ule +4, $ection 1 of the !ules of Court that allows dismissals due to plaintiffJs fault, including plaintiffJs failure to comply with the !ules for no (ustifiable cause. 7owhere does it impose a sole burden on the trial court to set the case for pre* trial.
Rule 1; Sec 6
ASS+C*A2E/ BA< =. S)+USES )R+S2R+LLER )he controversy stems from the 8otion for %eave to ntervene filed by $pouses aca who owned a foreclosed property and the bidding of which was subse"uently won by the Associated &an'. )he latter then sold the property to spouses -ronstroller. )ronstrollers re>uested that the $alance $e pa%a$le upon service on the# of a final decision affir#in Associated:s riht to possess the propert% , however this was denied by the board of Associated. After the Associated &an'#s right to posses the sub(ect property was upheld by the court in the case commenced by the spouses aca, the )ronstrollers filed a Co#plaint for Specific )erfor#ance $efore the R2C and the% like&ise caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens in the petitioner?s title. @hile the case &as pendin! the Associated Bank sold the su$"ect propert% $ack to the spouses =aca. Both the R2C and the CA ruled in favor of the )ronstrollers. Hence! this petition for Reconsideration $% the Associated Bank and otion for Leave to *ntervene $% the spouses =aca &ho alleed that the% are the reistered o&ners of the su$"ect propert% and are thus real parties'in'interest. *SSUE Whether or not the spouses aca shoul be allowed to intervene. HEL/
7o, the #otion for leave to intervene $efore this Court &as $elatedl% filed in vie& of Section 6! Rule 1; of the Rules of Court &hich provides SEC. 6. *i"e to intervene. 0 )he motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court . A copy of the pleading*in*intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.
)he $C then reiterated the ruling in Santia!o Lan evelop"ent Corporation v. Court of 1ppeals , as cited in Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of 1ppeals case which rule that
A transferee pendente lite of the propert% in litiation does not have a riht to intervene. We held that a transferee stands exactly in the shoes of his predecessor*in*interest, bound by the proceedings and (udgment in the case before the rights were assigned to him. t is not legally tenable for a transferee penente lite to still intervene. Bssentially, the law already considers the transferee (oined or substituted in theH pending action, commencing at the exact moment when the transfer of interest is perfected between the original party*transferor and the transferee penente lite. )herefore, even if the motion for leave to intervene was timely filed, $ps aca being a transferee penedente lite still has no right to intervene.
