2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v.

Ver

Capt. Danilo Pizarro, 1Lt. Pedro Tango, 1Lt. Romeo Ricardo, 1Lt.
Raul Bacalso, M/Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba and "John Does." The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 37487 and assigned to Branch 95.
In their complaint, the plaintiff-appellees alleged that they were
THIRD DIVISION arrested and detained by Task Force Makabansa, a composite group
of various intelligence units of the AFP, on the strength of defective
[G.R. No. 166216. March 14, 2012.] search warrants; that while under detention and investigation, they
were subjected to physical and psychological harm, torture and other
brutalities to extort from them confessions and other information that
ROGELIO ABERCA, RODOLFO BENOSA, NESTOR
would incriminate them; and that by reason thereof, they suffered
BODINO, NOEL ETABAG, DANILO DELA FUENTE, BELEN
actual and moral damages.
DIAZ-FLORES, MANUEL MARIO GUZMAN, ALAN
JASMINEZ, EDWIN LOPEZ, ALFREDO MANSOS, ALEX Defendants-appellants, through their counsel, the then
MARCELINO, ELIZABETH PROTACIO-MARCELINO, Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, filed a motion to dismiss on the
JOSEPH OLAYER, CARLOS PALMA, MARCO PALO, following grounds: (1) since the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
ROLANDO SALUTIN BENJAMIN SEGUNDO, ARTURO was then suspended, the trial court cannot inquire into the
TABARA, EDWIN TULALIAN, and REBECCA TULALIAN, circumstances surrounding plaintiffs-appellees' arrests; (2) the
petitioners, vs. MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER, COL. FIDEL defendants-appellants are immune from liability for the reason that
SINGSON, COL. GERARDO B. LANTORIA, COL. ROLANDO they were then performing their official duties; and (3) the complaint
states no cause of action.
ABADILLA, COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, LT. COL. PANFILO
M. LACSON, MAJ. RODOLFO AGUINALDO, CAPT. DANILO In an order dated November 8, 1983, the trial court granted
PIZARRO, 1LT. PEDRO TANGO, 1LT. ROMEO RICARDO, 1LT. defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss and ordered the case
RAUL BACALSO, M/SGT. BIENVENIDO BALABA and "JOHN dismissed.
DOES," respondents. Plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion to reconsider and set aside
the order of dismissal. In an order dated May 11, 1984, the trial court
declared the order of November 8, 1983 final.
DECISION
Plaintiffs-appellees again filed a motion for reconsideration of
the order dated May 11, 1984. In an order dated September 21, 1984,
the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.
MENDOZA, J : p

On March 15, 1985, plaintiffs-appellees went to the Supreme

Assailed in this petition is the July 31, 2003 Decision 1 of the Court of Court on a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul and set
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 43763 and its November 26, 2004 aside the orders of the trial court dated November 8, 1983, May 11,
Resolution 2 reversing and setting aside the February 19, 1993 Decision 3 of 1984 and September 21, 1984. The case was docketed as G.R. No.
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City (RTC), in Civil Case No. 69866.
37487 entitled "Rogelio Aberca, et al. v. Maj. Gen. Fabian Ver, et al." for sum While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the so-
of money and damages. CITcSH called EDSA revolution took place. As a result, the defendants-
appellants lost their official positions and were no longer in their
The Facts respective office addresses as appearing in the record. Also, in the
The factual and procedural antecedents were succinctly recited by the meantime, the case was re-raffled to Branch 107. SDHAcI

CA as follows:
On April 15, 1988, the Supreme Court rendered a decision
On 25 January 1983, several suspected subversives who were annulling and setting aside the assailed orders and remanded the
arrested and detained by the military filed a complaint for damages case to the trial court for further proceedings.
with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Gen. Fabian Ver,
However, trial could not proceed immediately because on June
then AFP Chief of Staff, and the following subordinate officers: Col.
11, 1988, the record of the case was destroyed when fire razed the
Fidel Singson, Col. Gerardo Lantoria, Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col.
City Hall of Quezon City. It was only on October 9, 1989 when
Guillermo Kintanar, Lt. Col. Panfilo Lacson, Maj. Rodolfo Aguinaldo,
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 1/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 2/18
2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

plaintiffs-appellees sought a reconstitution of the record of the case. the trial court directed plaintiffs-appellees to comply with the order of
The record shows that the petition for reconstitution was set for August 17, 1990 within ten (10) days from notice, with a warning that
hearing on October 27, 1989. However, there is nothing in the record the case [would] be archived and eventually dismissed if plaintiffs-
to show that defendants-appellants or their counsel were notified. For appellees failed to furnish to the court the addresses of defendants-
lack of an opposition, the petition for reconstitution was granted in an appellants. Plaintiffs-appellees moved to reconsider the order dated
order dated March 12, 1990. December 27, 1990 but in an order dated February 1, 1991, the trial
court denied the motion, stating that "without actual notice of the
On August 15, 1990, plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion praying
judgment of the Supreme Court . . . the defendants-appellants herein
that defendants-appellants be required to file their answer. However,
would not be aware that they should file a responsive pleading" and
the record as reconstituted did not show who are the lawyers of the
that, therefore, "to consider the defendants-appellants in default
defendants-appellants considering that Estelito Mendoza, who had
would be tantamount to lack of due process . . . ." CDHacE
represented them in his capacity as Solicitor General, was no longer
holding that position. Furthermore, defendants-appellants were also For failure of the plaintiffs-appellees to comply with the orders
no longer occupying the positions they held at the time the complaint dated August 17, 1990 and December 27, 1990, the trial court
was filed. Thus, in an order dated August 17, 1990, plaintiffs- dismissed the case without prejudice in its order dated March 7,
appellees were directed to report to the trial court the addresses and 1991. Subsequently, however, in an order dated June 4, 1991, the
whereabouts of defendants-appellants so that they could be properly trial court set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the case. It
notified. also approved plaintiffs-appellees' request to serve the notice to file
Instead of complying with the order of August 17, 1990, answer or responsive pleading by publication.
plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion to declare defendants-appellants in In a compliance dated September 12, 1991, plaintiffs-
default. The trial court deferred resolution of this motion and instead, appellees informed the trial court that the following notice was
it issued an order on September 10, 1990 directing that a copy of the published in the Tagalog newspaper BALITA in its issues of August
order dated August 17, 1990 be furnished to new Solicitor General 29, 1991 and September 5, 1991:
Francisco Chavez to enable him to take action pursuant to Section
18, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and to former Solicitor General xxx xxx xxx
Estelito Mendoza to enable him to give notice as to whether he No answer was filed by defendants-appellants within the
[would] continue to represent the defendants-appellants in his private period stated in the notice. On motion of plaintiffs-appellees, the trial
capacity. As it said in its order, the trial court took this action "in view court in its order dated December 5, 1991 declared defendants-
of the change in government and corresponding change in the appellants in default and directed plaintiffs-appellees to present their
addresses and circumstances of the defendants-appellants who may evidence ex-parte. 4
not even be aware of the decision of the Supreme Court in case G.R.
No. L-69866 and of the reconstitution of records in this case . . . ." Ruling of the RTC
On October 1, 1990, former Solicitor General Mendoza filed a On February 19, 1993, the RTC handed down a decision in favor of the
manifestation informing the trial court that his appearance as petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:
defendants-appellants' counsel terminated when he ceased to be WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the
Solicitor General and that he was not representing them in his private following defendants:
capacity. On his part, Solicitor General Chavez finally filed on
December 11, 1990 a notice of withdrawal of appearance, citing 1) Maj. General Fabian Ver
Urbano v. Go, where the Supreme Court said that "the Office of the 2) Col. Fidel Singson
Solicitor General (OSG) is not authorized to represent a public official
at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil suit for damages arising 3) Col. Rolando Abadilla
from a felony." The record does not show that defendants-appellants 4) Col. Gerardo Lantoria
were furnished a copy of this notice of withdrawal or that they gave
their conformity thereto. 5) Col. Galileo Kintanar

In an order dated December 27, 1990, the trial court denied 6) Lt. Col. Panfilo Lacson
plaintiffs-appellees' motion to declare defendants-appellants in 7) Maj. Rodolfo Aguinaldo
default, emphatically pointing out that defendants-appellants were not
duly notified of the decision of the Supreme Court. In the same order, 8) 1Lt. Pedro Tango
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 3/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 4/18
2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

9) M/Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba Maj. Aguinaldo argued that he was deliberately deprived of the
to pay jointly and severally to EACH of the following plaintiffs: opportunity to be heard and put up his defense, while Col. Singson, Lt. Col.
Lacson and Col. Abadilla presented the following assignment of errors:
a) Rodolfo Benosa
I
b) Manuel Mario Guzman
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE OFFICE OF THE
c) Joseph Olayer SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG) TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
d) Marco Palo WITHOUT THE REQUIRED NOTICE TO, AND/OR
CONSENT/CONFORMITY OF APPELLANTS.
e) Rolando Salutin
II
the amounts of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as
temperate or moderate damages; ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00) as moral damages; and ONE OF DEFAULT AND/OR THE JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AND
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00) as exemplary GRANTING NEW TRIAL.
damages. Likewise, they are ordered to pay jointly and severally the III
sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS to the plaintiffs'
counsel. HcTEaA
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OSG'S
MISTAKES AND NEGLIGENCE ARE BINDING ON THE
The claims of the rest of the plaintiffs are denied and thereby DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. IcHTAa

dismissed. Likewise, the case against the following defendants: Capt.

Danilo Pizarro, 1Lt. Romeo Ricardo and 1Lt. Raul Bacalso is IV
DISMISSED, and the said defendants are exonerated from any THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE DEFENDANTS-
liability. 5 APPELLANTS SINGSON, ABADILLA AND LACSON LIABLE FOR
THE ALLEGED DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFFS-
Subsequently, respondents Col. Fidel Singson (Col. Singson), Lt. Col.
APPELLANTS (SIC). 7
Panfilo M. Lacson (Lt. Col. Lacson), and Col. Rolando Abadilla (Col. Abadilla)
filed their Omnibus Motion praying as follows: 1) that the order of default dated The Ruling of the CA
December 5, 1991 be reversed and set aside; 2) that the decision dated On July 31, 2003, the CA rendered a decision reversing and setting
February 19, 1993 be reversed and set aside; 3) that the entire proceedings aside the RTC decision and ordering the case remanded to the RTC for
be declared null and void; and 4) that they be given fifteen (15) days from further proceedings. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads as
notice to file answer to the complaint and present their evidence. Col. Gerardo follows:
B. Lantoria (Col. Lantoria) filed his own Motion for Reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby
On his part, respondent Maj. Rodolfo Aguinaldo (Maj. Aguinaldo) failed GRANTED. The assailed decision dated February 19, 1993 is hereby
to file a timely notice of appeal so he filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the record be REMANDED to the
praying that the RTC set aside its decision and proceed to try the case based trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing
on the following grounds: 1) the decision was rendered without the benefit of disquisition.
notice in gross violation of his right to due process; 2) the reconstitution of the
records of the case and further proceedings taken thereon were effected SO ORDERED. 8
through fraud; and 3) his failure to move for a new trial or to appeal was due to The CA ruled, among others, that the RTC committed four (4) errors in
mistake or excusable negligence. declaring the respondents in default and proceeding to hear the case. The
The Omnibus Motion of Col. Singson, Lt. Col. Lacson and Col. Abadilla; RTC committed its first error when it abandoned the proper modes of service
the Motion for Reconsideration of Col. Gerardo Lantoria; and the Petition for of notices, orders, resolutions or judgments as the petitioners failed to comply
Relief from Judgment of Maj. Aguinaldo were denied by the RTC. 6 Aggrieved, with its order dated August 17, 1990, directing them to report the addresses
the said respondents elevated their case to the CA. and whereabouts of the respondents so that they could be properly notified.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 5/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 6/18

2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

The second error was the failure of the RTC to avail of substituted II
service after failing to effect personal service or service by mail. It perpetrated IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
its third error when it authorized service by publication after dismissing the RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL TO SET ASIDE THE
case for failure of the petitioners to furnish the current addresses of the JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, THE
respondents. The CA reasoned out that there was nothing in the rules which COURT A QUO ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW AND
would authorize publication of a notice of hearing to file answer and for what JURISPRUDENCE, AND SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL
was authorized to be published were summons and final orders and COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO WARRANT THE
judgments. The fourth error was committed when the respondents were EXERCISE BY THIS COURT OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION. 11
declared in default because they were not duly notified and, therefore, were
denied due process. The Petitioners' Position
The petitioners claim that the RTC did not err in declaring the
The CA stated that since the RTC failed to notify the respondents of the
respondents in default and in allowing them to present evidence ex-parte; that
proceedings undertaken, the latter were denied the chance to actively
the respondents were represented by the OSG from 1983 up to December 11,
participate therein. It explained as follows:
1990 when the latter withdrew its appearance from the case; that after the
Instead of observing the above precepts by according respondents had appeared, thru the OSG, by filing a motion to dismiss, the
defendants-appellants every opportunity to ventilate their side of the petitioners were under no obligation to track down the respondents' addresses
controversy, the trial court failed not only to notify them of the since the Rules of Court provide that once a litigant is represented by counsel,
proceedings undertaken relative to the resolution of the case but the all notices, motions and pleadings must be sent to him as counsel of record;
chance as well to actively participate therein. It bears stressing that that it is a matter of record that the OSG was furnished copies of all court
defendants-appellants were not informed of the reinstatement of the
orders and the petitioners' pleadings for the period it remained as the
case against them when the High Tribunal set aside the orders of the
respondents' counsel of record or from 1983 until the OSG withdrew on
trial court dated May 11, 1984, September 21, 1984 and November 8,
December 11, 1990; that as counsel of record, the OSG was duty-bound to file
1983 dismissing the complaint instituted by plaintiffs-appellees.
the respondents' answer to the complaint within 15 days from notice that it
Likewise, defendants-appellants were not apprised of the
reconstitution of the records of the case which were destroyed by the was reinstated by this Court and the case was remanded to the RTC for
fire that razed the City Hall of Quezon City. In the same manner, they further proceedings; and that despite having received copies of this Court's
were not notified of the withdrawal of the OSG as their official counsel decision in G.R. No. 69866 on or about April 20, 1988 and despite having
of record, much less was their consent thereto sought. Finally and been duly notified of the finality of said decision by means of this Court's Entry
most significantly, defendants-appellants were precluded the chance of Judgment, the OSG did not file any answer or seek an extension of time to
to file their respective answer or responsive pleadings to the do so.
complaint with the issuance of the order dated December 5, 1991
The petitioners further argue that as early as May 1988, when this
declaring them in default notwithstanding the defective service by
Court's decision became final and executory and the respondents received
publication of the court's notice requiring them to file such answer or
notice thereof through their counsel of record, it was incumbent upon them to
responsive pleading. 9 DIETHS
have answered the complaint within the period provided by the Rules of Court;
Not satisfied, the petitioners come to this Court praying for the reversal that the RTC was not hasty in declaring the respondents in default for they
and setting aside of the CA decision anchored on the following arguments: were given several chances to file their answers even after their period to do
so had already lapsed; that it was the respondents' failure to exercise ordinary
I prudence in monitoring the progress of this case that placed the petitioners in
IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT'S RULINGS DECLARING a difficult situation; that the respondents in this case cannot seize control of
DEFENDANTS IN DEFAULT AND ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO the proceedings or cause them to be suspended indefinitely by the simple
PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE EX-PARTE; AND IN NULLIFYING expedient of not filing their answers or by feigning ignorance of the status of
THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, THE COURT A the proceedings; that the rule on service of summons by means of publication
QUO ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE AND applies to service of summons by publication, not to notices to file answer by
SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL publication; that while service of summons by publication entails acquiring
PROCEEDINGS AS TO WARRANT THE EXERCISE BY THIS jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, it was already obtained over the
COURT OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION. 10 respondents in this case by their voluntary appearance through counsel and
their act of filing a motion to dismiss on substantive grounds; that substituted
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 7/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 8/18
2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

service was an exercise in futility because the respondents were no longer Rule 13
holding the positions they were holding at the time the petition was filed and, SEC. 5. Modes of service. — Service of pleadings,
therefore, could not be reached at the addresses indicated on the complaint; motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be made
that the only remaining option was to notify the respondents by publication; either personally or by mail.
that the RTC did not err in holding that the respondents failed to establish the
fraud, accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence that would warrant the SEC. 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers may be
grant of a new trial, or the setting aside of the judgment and/or petition for made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his counsel, or
relief from judgment; that the negligence of the OSG is binding on the by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof. If no person is found in his office, or his office is not known,
respondents in the same manner that its initial success in securing the
or he has no office, then by leaving the copy, between the hours of
dismissal of the case was binding on them; and that it would be highly unfair
eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's
to allow the respondents, who reaped the benefits of the initial dismissal of the
residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion
case and never complained then about the OSG, to suddenly complain that then residing therein.
they were not bound by their counsel's handling or mishandling of the case.
SEC. 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail
The Respondents' Position shall be made by depositing the copy in the office, in a sealed
The respondents counter that the CA did not commit a reversible error envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if
in reversing and setting aside the default judgment rendered by the RTC; that known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully
the petitioners failed to address four (4) errors committed by the RTC cited by prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to
the CA; that the respondents were deprived of the opportunity to file their the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry service is
answer or responsive pleadings to the complaint when the RTC issued a available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service
default order against them after a defective service of notice to file answer by may be done by ordinary mail.
publication; that the petitioners' invocation of the jurisprudence that a SEC. 8. Substituted service. — If service of pleadings,
defaulting party has the burden of showing that he has a meritorious defense motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be
does not apply in this case; and that what should apply is the settled rule that made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of
once a denial or deprivation of due process is determined, the RTC is ousted residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be
of its jurisdiction to proceed and its judgment is null and void. made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure
of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete
The Court's Ruling at the time of such delivery.
The basic question is whether the constitutional right to procedural due
The above rules, thus, prescribe the modes of service of pleadings,
process was properly observed or was unacceptably violated in this case
motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other papers, namely: (1) personal
when the respondents were declared in default for failing to file their answer
service; (2) service by mail; and (3) substituted service, in case service cannot
within the prescribed period and when the petitioners were allowed to present
be effected either personally or by mail.
their evidence ex-parte.
cAHIaE
DCSTAH

The Rules of Court has been laid down to insure the orderly conduct of
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that:
litigation and to protect the substantive rights of all party litigants. It is for this
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without reason that the basic rules on the modes of service provided under Rule 13 of
due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal the Rules of Court have been made mandatory and, hence, should be strictly
protection of the law. followed. In Marcelino Domingo v. Court of Appeals, 14 the Court wrote:
Procedural due process is that which hears before it condemns, which Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court states:
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. It contemplates
notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting one's SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. —
Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other
person or property. 12
papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers
Moreover, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 (5) of Article VIII of the emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be
1987 Constitution, 13 the Court adopted and promulgated the following rules accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was
concerning, among others, the protection and enforcement of constitutional not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider
rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts: the paper as not filed.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 9/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 10/18
2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

Section 11 is mandatory. In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation
Judge Ricafort, the Court held that: introduced by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the
administration of justice.
Pursuant . . . to Section 11 of Rule 13, service and filing of
pleadings and other papers must, whenever practicable, be done xxx xxx xxx
personally; and if made through other modes, the party concerned
. . . [F]or the guidance of the Bench and Bar, strictest
must provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was
compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated. [Emphasis
not done personally. . . .
supplied]
Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons.
In the case at bench, the respondents were completely deprived of due
Plainly, such should expedite action or resolution on a pleading,
motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not eliminate, process when they were declared in default based on a defective mode of
delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail, service — service of notice to file answer by publication. The rules on service
considering the inefficiency of postal service. Likewise, personal of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other papers were not
service will do away with the practice of some lawyers who, wanting strictly followed in declaring the respondents in default. The Court agrees with
to appear clever, resort to the following less than ethical practices: (1) the CA that the RTC committed procedural lapses in declaring the
serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch opposing counsel off- respondents in default and in allowing the petitioners to present evidence ex-
guard, thus leaving the latter with little or no time to prepare, for parte.
instance, responsive pleadings or an opposition; or (2) upon receiving
A review of the records discloses that after the Court rendered its April
notice from the post office that the registered parcel containing the
15, 1988 Decision in G.R. No. 69866, annulling the RTC orders dated
pleading of or other paper from the adverse party may be claimed,
November 8, 1983, May 11, 1984 and September 21, 1984 and ordering the
unduly procrastinating before claiming the parcel, or, worse, not
claiming it at all, thereby causing undue delay in the disposition of remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings, the RTC issued an
such pleading or other papers. order 15 dated August 17, 1990 directing the petitioners to report the
addresses and whereabouts of the respondents so that they would be
If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation properly notified of the proceedings. This directive was issued by the RTC
to our set of adjective rules requiring personal service whenever
considering that the respondents' counsel of record, the OSG, could no longer
practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion
represent them and because the respondents were no longer holding official
to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of
government positions because of a change in government brought about by
service or filing were resorted to and no written explanation was
the 1986 EDSA Revolution. This order was likewise made in response to the
made as to why personal service was not done in the first place. The
exercise of discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability of motion 16 filed by the petitioners praying that the respondents be required to
personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause file their answer.
"whenever practicable." 2005jur
Instead of complying with the RTC's directive to report the respondents'
We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, addresses and whereabouts, the petitioners filed a motion 17 dated September
Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and 4, 1990 to declare the respondents in default. On December 27, 1990, the
filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and RTC denied the petitioners' default motion because the respondents were not
filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing duly notified of the April 15, 1988 Decision of this Court and the OSG no
is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, longer wanted to represent them. The RTC likewise ordered the petitioners to
personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service comply with its August 17, 1990 Order, otherwise, the case would be archived
or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which and eventually dismissed. On February 1, 1991, the RTC denied the
must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why petitioners' motion for reconsideration and on March 7, 1991, it issued an
personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In order dismissing the case without prejudice.
adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise
consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the Surprisingly, on June 4, 1991, the RTC issued an order 18 setting aside
issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading its March 7, 1991 Order and reinstating the case. It directed the petitioners,
sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court cannot among others, to cause the publication of a notice on the respondents to file
answer or responsive pleading. After the petitioners complied with the

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 11/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 12/18

2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

publication requirements, the RTC issued the order dated December 5, 1991 Furthermore, the Court would like to point out that service by publication
declaring the respondents in default and directing the petitioners to present only applies to service of summons stated under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
evidence ex-parte. where the methods of service of summons in civil cases are: (1) personal
As correctly observed by the CA, the RTC's August 17, 1990 Order was service; 19 (2) substituted service; 20 and (3) service by publication. 21
an attempt to serve a notice to file answer on the respondents by personal Similarly, service by publication can apply to judgments, final orders and
service and/or by mail. These proper and preferred modes of service, resolutions as provided under Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as
however, were never resorted to because the OSG abandoned them when the follows:
petitioners failed to comply with the August 17, 1990 RTC order requiring them SEC. 9. Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions.
to report the addresses and whereabouts of the respondents. Nevertheless, — Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be served either
there was still another less preferred but proper mode of service available — personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by
substituted service — which is service made by delivering the copy to the clerk publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final
of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also
Unfortunately, this substitute mode of service was not resorted to by the RTC by publication at the expense of the prevailing party. [Emphasis
after it failed to effect personal service and service by mail. Instead, the RTC supplied]
authorized an unrecognized mode of service under the Rules, which was As correctly ruled by the CA: SHTaID

service of notice to file answer by publication. EASCDH

Its third error was when it authorized service by publication

Considering the fact that the OSG could no longer represent the after initially dismissing the case for failure of plaintiffs-appellees to
respondents, the RTC should have been more patient in notifying the furnish the current address of defendants-appellants. There is,
respondents through personal service and/or service by mail. It should not however, nothing in the Rules that authorizes publication of a notice
have simply abandoned the preferred modes of service when the petitioners of hearing to file answer. What is authorized to be published are: (1)
failed to comply with its August 17, 1990 order with the correct addresses of summons, and (2) final orders and judgments.
the respondents. More so, it should not have skipped the substituted service xxx xxx xxx
prescribed under the Rules and authorized a service of notice on the
respondents to file answer by publication. The above-quoted provision cannot be used to justify the trial
court's action in authorizing service by publication. Firstly, what was
In view of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the case, the RTC published was not a final order or judgment but a simple order or
should have instead directed the petitioners to exert diligent efforts to notify notice to file answer. Secondly, even granting that the notice to file
the respondents either personally or by registered mail. In case the preferred answer can be served by publication, it is explicit in the Rule that
modes were impractical, the Court should have required the petitioners to at publication is allowed only if the defendant-appellant was summoned
least report in writing why efforts exerted towards personal service or service by publication. The record is clear that defendants-appellants were
by mail failed. In other words, a convincing proof of an impossibility of not summoned by publication.
personal service or service by mail to the respondents should have been
On this point, the petitioners argue that the publication was a valid and
shown first. The RTC, thus, erred when it ruled that the publication of a notice
justified procedure because following the ruling of the RTC, it was "an extra
to file answer to the respondents substantially cured the procedural defect
step to safeguard the interest of the defendants done pursuant to the inherent
equivalent to lack of due process. The RTC cannot just abandon the basic
power of the courts to control its proceedings to make them comfortable to law
requirement of personal service and/or service by mail.
and justice." The petitioners further argue that "the defendants in a civil case
At any rate, the Court is of the view that personal service to the cannot seize control of the proceedings or cause them to be suspended
respondents was practicable under the circumstances considering that they indefinitely by the simple expedient of not filing their answers or by feigning
were well-known persons who used to occupy high government positions. ignorance of the proceedings. All these could have been avoided had the
defendants not been so inexplicably complacent and utterly lacking in ordinary
To stress, the only modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices,
prudence."
orders, judgments and other papers allowed by the rules are personal service,
service by mail and substituted service if either personal service or service by The Court is not convinced.
mail cannot be made, as stated in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules
of Court. Nowhere under this rule is service of notice to file answer by
publication is mentioned, much less recognized.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 13/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 14/18
2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

As already discussed above, the basic rules on modes of service of and the possibility of such serious consequences necessitates a
pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other papers are careful examination of the grounds upon which the defendant asks
mandatory in nature and, therefore, must be strictly observed. The Court is not that it be set aside. Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed
unaware of the inherent power of courts to control its proceedings. to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that this
Nonetheless, the exercise of such inherent power must not violate basic court Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a particular
procedures. More importantly, it must not disregard one's basic constitutional case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to
right to procedural due process. frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice. We are not
unmindful of the fact that during the pendency of the instant petition,
This was precisely the reason for the RTC's denial of the petitioner's the trial court has rendered judgment against petitioners. However,
default motion in its August 17, 1990 Order, and for the eventual dismissal of being the court of last resort, we deem it in the best interest that
the case in its December 27, 1990 Order. liberality and relaxation of the Rules be extended to petitioners by
setting aside the order of default issued by the trial court and the
It must be noted that as the RTC orders stated, the respondents were
consequent default judgment; otherwise, great injustice would result if
not notified of the April 15, 1988 Decision of this Court, which ordered the re- petitioners are not afforded an opportunity to prove their claims.
opening and remanding of this case to the RTC. They were neither notified of
the reconstitution proceedings that took place pertaining to the burned records Finally, the Court finds unacceptable the petitioners' contention that 1)
of the case. The RTC further stated that the respondents were no longer the respondents were well represented by counsel from 1983 up to December
holding their official government positions and that they were no longer 1990 and that the respondents were properly notified of the entire proceedings
represented by the OSG on account of the change in government. In other through their counsel; 2) the respondents' counsel was negligent for failing to
words, the respondents had no counsel of record and no notice of subsequent file an answer within the prescribed period; and 3) the negligence of the OSG
proceedings. In short, due process was absent. TADaES
binds the respondents. caSDCA

Next, the court records got burned during the June 11, 1988 fire that hit The petitioners do not deny the fact that on May 15, 1985, they filed a
the Quezon City Hall where the records were kept. On March 12, 1990, the petition for certiorari before this Court questioning the RTC orders granting the
RTC granted the petitioners' petition for reconstitution. Again, the records do respondents' motion to dismiss and denying their motion for reconsideration.
not show that the RTC initiated extra efforts to notify the respondents about They do not question the fact that while their petition was pending in this
the reconstitution proceedings. The entire records of this case tend to show Court, the 1986 EDSA Revolution took place which resulted in the removal of
that the respondents were completely out of the picture until after the the respondents from their respective high government offices and the
promulgation of the RTC decision. replacement of then Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza (Sol. Gen. Mendoza).
There is likewise no dispute that subsequently, on April 15, 1988, this Court
On countless occasions, the Court ruled that, generally, judgments by rendered its decision annulling the subject RTC orders and remanding the
default are looked upon with disfavor and are frowned upon as contrary to case to the RTC for further proceedings. The case was then re-raffled to
public policy. An example here would be the case of Regalado P. Samartino v. another branch.
Leonor B. Raon, 22 where the Court stated:
Clearly from the above circumstances, there was no longer any lawyer-
The trial court should not have been too rash in declaring client relationship between the OSG and the respondents at the time the
petitioner in default, considering it had actual notice of valid reasons
decision of the Court dated April 15, 1988 was promulgated because,
that prevented him from answering. Well-settled is the rule that courts
admittedly, after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the respondents were no longer
should be liberal in setting aside orders of default for default
occupying their respective government positions and Sol. Gen. Mendoza, who
judgments are frowned upon, unless in cases where it clearly
represented them, was no longer the Solicitor General.
appears that the reopening of the case is intended for delay. The
issuance of orders of default should be the exception rather than the In fact, in compliance with the RTC's order dated September 10, 1990,
rule, to be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the 23 former Solicitor General Mendoza submitted a manifestation 24 that his legal
defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court. representation for the respondents was deemed terminated when he ceased
Suits should as much as possible be decided on the merits to be the Solicitor General and that he was not representing the respondents
and not on technicalities. In this regard, we have often admonished in his private capacity. For his part, on December 11, 1990, the incumbent
courts to be liberal in setting aside orders of default as default Solicitor General at that time, Solicitor General Francisco Chavez (Sol. Gen.
judgments are frowned upon and not looked upon with favor for they Chavez), filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance for the respondents citing
may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant the case of Urbano v. Chavez, 25 where the Court ruled that the OSG is not
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 15/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 16/18
2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver 2/21/2020 G.R. No. 166216 | Aberca v. Ver

authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a 9. Id. at 61-62.
civil suit for damages arising from a felony. The records do not show any proof 10. Id. at 31.
that the respondents were furnished a copy of this notice of withdrawal or
whether or not they gave their conformity thereto. 11. Id. at 35.

Contrary to the petitioners' position, while it is true that Sol. Gen. 12. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. Jesus Panaguiton, G.R. No. L-26054, July 21,
Chavez filed a notice of withdrawal only on December 11, 1990, the 1978, 84 SCRA 148, 153.
respondents were in effect no longer represented by counsel as early as April 13. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers.
15, 1988 when the Court's decision was rendered, or much earlier, right after
xxx xxx xxx
the 1986 EDSA Revolution due to the change in government. The Court
cannot subscribe to the petitioners' argument that there was negligence or (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
mistake on the part of the OSG considering that Sol. Gen. Mendoza ceased to constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
hold office due to the EDSA Revolution while Sol. Gen. Chavez withdrew his admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to
representation because of the prohibition in Urbano v. Chavez. Definitely, Sol. the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
Gen. Mendoza's cessation from holding office and Sol. Gen. Chavez's procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
withdrawal of representation in the unique scenario of this case are not of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
equivalent to professional delinquency or ignorance, incompetency or rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
inexperience or negligence and dereliction of duty. Hence, there is no shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
negligence of counsel in this case. After the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the [Emphases supplied]
respondents were practically left without counsel. 14. Marcelino Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169122, February 2,
2010, 611 SCRA 353, 364-365.
As a final point, this Court commiserates with the petitioners' plight and
cry for justice. They should not be denied redress of their grievances. The 15. Rollo, p. 127.
Court, however, finds Itself unable to grant their plea because the fundamental 16. Id. at 125-126.
law clearly provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and
property without due process of law. 17. Id. at 129.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. TCacIE

18. Id. at 135-136.
19. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 6, Rule 14.
SO ORDERED.
20. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 7, Rule 14.
Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Abad and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
21. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Sections 14, 15 & 16, Rule 14.
22. G.R. No. 131482, July 3, 2002, 383 SCRA 664, 672-673.
Footnotes
23. Rollo, p. 130.
1. Rollo, pp. 52-63 (Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and
concurred in by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona and Associate 24. Id. at 132.
Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente). 25. G.R. No. 88578, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 347, 358.
2. Id. at 67-69.
3. Id. at 97-123.
4. Id. at 52-56.
5. Id. at 122-123.
6. Id. at 200-205.
7. Id. at 58-59.
8. Id. at 63.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 17/18 https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/55403/print 18/18