Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

109 Phil 310:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13801. August 31, 1960.]

PAULINA BAUTISTA, assisted by husband, DEOGRACIAS BAUTISTA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LEONCIO DACANAY and CIPRIANO S. ALLAS, Defendants-Appellants.

Tañada, Teehankee & Carreón for Appellees.

Lino M. Patajo for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. SERVICE OF NOTICES; FAILURE TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF HEARING WHEN NOT NEGLIGENCE; WHEN REINSTATEMENT OF DECISION AMOUNTS TO A DENIAL OF RIGHT. — The failure of defendant’s counsel to receive the notice of hearing because the letter containing the same remained undelivered in the post office does not amount to negligence on his part. For this reason the order of the court reinstating its previous decision for failure of counsel to appear before it at the hearing of his motion to set aside said decision amounts to a denial of the right of the defendant to be heard.

2. ID.; ID.; POSTMASTER’S CERTIFICATE OF FAILURE TO DELIVER LETTER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. — The fact that other letters sent by mail to defendant’s counsel were received by him does not prove that the order in question, through regular mail, was likewise received by him. Moreover, a certificate of failure to deliver a letter executed by the postmaster is conclusive evidence that the addressee did not receive the same.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch V, Quezon City), Hon. Nicasio Yatco, presiding, denying a motion of defendants-appellants to set aside an order reinstating a previous decision of the court, as against defendant Cipriano S. Allas. The appeal was taken directly to this Court as it involves a question of law.

The action in which the order appealed from was issued was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by plaintiff Paulina Bautista to secure the payment of the sum of P2,000 due and owing to her from Leoncio Dacanay and Cipriano S. Allas, covered by a promissory note dated October 11, 1956. Summons having been served on defendants, Cipriano S. Allas filed his answer, alleging that he had paid the sum of P700.00 through one Mrs. Jose Biagtan, and that his co-defendant Leoncio Dacanay had assigned various credits amounting to P2,000 to plaintiff in payment of the indebtedness in question. As defendant Dacanay did not file an answer, he was declared in default. At the time of the hearing, defendant Allas failed to appear so judgment was rendered against defendants to pay jointly and severally, the full amount of P2,000, with legal interest from the date of filing of the complaint, plus attorney’s fees in the amount of P300.00. This judgment is dated September 2, 1957. On September 9, 1957, attorney for defendant Allas, presented a motion to set aside the decision with respect to his client, alleging that Allas has a good and substantial defense and that his failure to appear was due to the fact that he received the notice of the hearing set for September 2, 1957 only the day after, i. e., on September 3, 1957. This motion was granted by the court in an order dated October 22, 1957.

The case was again set for hearing on November 18, 1957, at which hearing neither the defendant Allas nor his counsel appeared. Thereupon the court ordered the reinstatement of the previous judgment dated September 2, 1957. On December 9, 1957, counsel for Allas filed a motion to set aside this last order of the court dated November 18, 1957, alleging that he (counsel) did not receive copy of the order of the court setting the case for hearing on November 18, 1957, stating further that the order or notice of hearing was still with the Quezon City Post Office; that the Quezon City Post Office failed to forward the said letter to the San Francisco Del Monte Post Office, as a result of which the said letter or notice of hearing was not received by him. Attached to his motion to set aside the order is a certificate issued by the Acting Postmaster of Quezon City to the effect that the registered letter sent by the Court of First Instance, Branch V, Quezon City, addressed to Atty. Lino M. Patajo, 4 Road 3, West Avenue, Sub., Quezon City, posted at the Quezon City Post Office, dated October 31, 1957, is still in his office undelivered. The motion was opposed by counsel for plaintiff, who argued that counsel for defendant was negligent in not making inquiries from the court about the case; that said counsel was negligent in his actuations in the case as shown by his failure to follow up proceedings of the court; that granting that counsel for defendant did not receive copy of the order of the court setting the case for hearing, he should have obtained knowledge of the hearing because of the notice to produce certain documents that counsel for the plaintiff had sent him (counsel for defendant).

At the hearing of the above motion and the opposition thereto, the court denied the motion to set aside the order reinstating the previous decision; hence, this appeal.

There is no question that counsel for defendant Allas did not receive copy of the order of the court setting the case for hearing on November 18, 1957. This fact is conclusively shown by the certificate of the postmaster to the effect that the letter coming from the court was still in the Quezon City Post Office undelivered. The reason for non-delivery, and even of absence of notice, is because the letter was never transferred to the San Francisco del Monte Post Office, to which addressee belonged. Counsel for appellees in this Court argue that similar notices in another case from the clerk of the Supreme Court had reached the same counsel. This fact of receipt of other letters by mail does not prove that the order in question, sent through registered mail, was also received by said counsel. The certificate of failure to deliver the notice of the letter containing the order fixing the date of hearing is conclusive evidence that counsel for defendant did not receive the order of the court setting the case for hearing on November 18, 1957.

The failure of the counsel for defendant to receive the notice cannot be attributed to any negligence on the part of said counsel. If other notifications had been received by him, argues counsel for plaintiff-appellee, there is no reason why he should not expect the notice of hearing to reach him. We believe that the court below erred in refusing to set aside its order reinstating his previous decision, as such refusal amounts to a denial of the right of the defendant to be heard. The post office was chosen by the court as the agency through which defendant’s counsel was to be notified. Responsibility for failure of such agent to make delivery of the letter containing the order setting the case for hearing may not be imputed to defendant’s counsel.

Wherefore, the order of the court reinstating the decision is hereby set aside, and the case is hereby remanded to the court below for further proceedings. Without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390