Agravante VS Patriarcha

AGRAVANTE VS PATRIARCHA
G.R. No. 48324. March 14, 1990.
FACTS:
In 1969, Juana Patriarca Peña filed with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur 1
an action to quiet title with damages against Jose Agravante and Juan Agravante. 2
Answer was in due course filed by the defendants.
The records of the court including the case were burned before it could be held for pre-
trial. The defendants’ counsel moved for cancellation of this setting. The Court reset the
pre-trial to February 27, 1978. But again, the defendants’ attorney, pleading illness,
sought to have this second pre-trial setting cancelled by motion which although dated
February 14, 1978, was filed only on February 22, 1978. 3 The motion contained no
notice of hearing, but there was a photocopy of a medical certificate dated January 30,
1978 attached to it, attesting to the attorney’s indisposition ("headache") and advising
rest for him. This motion was denied by the Presiding Judge who promulgated the
following Order on February 22, 1978, 4 notice of which was served on defendants’
counsel on February 24, 1978.
At the scheduled pre-trial on February 27, 1978 neither the defendants nor their
counsel appeared. The Court consequently declared the defendants in default and
authorized the plaintiff to "present . . . (her) evidence ex parte at any time before this
Court." 5
On March 4, 1978, Juana Patriarca Peña having died, her heirs presented a motion
advising of her demise and praying that they be substituted in her stead in the action. 6
This was granted by Order of March 7, 1978. The defendants moved for reconsideration
of these three (3) orders, dated February 22 and 27, and March 4, 1978. The Judge
denied the motion for lack of merit on April 11, 1978 as well as a second, presented by
the defendants.
Issue: WON the judge erred in denying the motion for lack of merit.
Held:
The petition is completely without merit.
The omission in defendants’ motion for cancellation of the pre-trial scheduled on

February 27, 1978 of a notice of hearing was not a mere formal defect, as defendants
seem to imagine. The motion for cancellation or postponement was not one that could
be granted by the Court as a matter of course, and thus be acted on ex parte. No party
has a right to a postponement of a trial or hearing, or pre-trial; and his adversary has
the right to oppose any move towards this end.
If the motion be grounded on illness of a party or counsel, the Rules further require an
"affidavit that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial (or pre-trial) is
indispensable and that the character of his illness is such as to render his non-
attendance excusable."
The defendants’ counsel, Atty. Pacamarra, attributes his omission to include a notice of
hearing in his motion in question to his headache at the time. But neither his motion
nor its supporting medical certificate showed "that the character of his illness is such as
to render his non-attendance excusable,"
There was, too, a not unreasonable hesitancy on the part of the Trial Court to give full
credence to the medical certificate attached to the motion, since it was not verified and
was only a xerox copy.
993, a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) was entered into between respondents
National Housing Authority (NHA) and R-II Builders, Inc. (R-II Builders) for the
implementation of the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project
(SMDRP).
1994, NHA and R-II Builders, alongside petitioner Housing Guaranty
Corporation (HGC) as guarantor and the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as
trustee, entered into an Asset Pool Formation Trust Agreement which provided
the mechanics for the implementation of the project. the parties executed a
Contract of Guaranty whereby HGC, upon the call made by PNB and conditions
therein specified, undertook to redeem the regular Smokey Mountain Project
Participation Certificate (SMPPCs) upon maturity and to pay the simple interest
thereon to the extent of 8.5% per annum.
2005, R-II Builders filed a complaint against HGC and NHA before Branch 24 of
the Manila Regional Trial Court, a Special Commercial Court (SCC). The
complaint contained that HGC's failure to redeem the outstanding regular
SMPPCs despite obtaining possession of the Asset Pool ballooned the stipulated
interests and materially prejudiced its stake on the residual values of the Asset
Pool, R-II Builders alleged that the DAC should be rescinded since PDB exceeded
its authority in executing the same prior to HGC's redemption and payment of
the guaranteed SMPPCs.
On September 2, 2008, HGC filed its opposition to the admission of R-II
Builders' Second Amended Complaint on the ground that respondent RTC had no
jurisdiction to act on the case until payment of the correct docket fees has been
executed.

Agravante VS Patriarcha

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agravante VS Patriarcha

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agravante VS Patriarcha

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRAVANTE VS PATRIARCHA

G.R. No. 48324. March 14, 1990.

The petition is completely without merit.

The omission in defendants’ motion for cancellation of the pre-trial scheduled on

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.