G.R. No. 173942 - FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC. AND FAIRWAYS AND BLUE-WATERS RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., VS. HON. MARIETTA J. HOMENA-VALENCIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 1, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KALIBO, AKLAN, AND SULLIAN SY NAVAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, pre-trial was reset to 27 September 1999, with notice thereof served on Atty. Lagamon, Jr. However, nobody appeared for petitioners on the new pre-trial date. Hence, the RTC issued an order setting the date for presentation of Navals evidence as plaintiff. At the trial, only Naval presented evidence on her behalf. On 28 February 2000, the RTC rendered a decision [5] in favor of Naval, ordering petitioners to restore to her possession the subject property. The trial court cited Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as bases for allowing Naval to present evidence ex parte in view of petitioners non-appearance at the pre-trial. It concluded that petitioners had indeed illegally occupied the subject property from the start of the construction of the golf course. Thus, the RTC ordered petitioners to pay monthly rentals amounting to P 50,000.00 from April 1997 to October 1998, and P 70,000.00, compounded by a 20% increase per annum thereafter until possession is restored to Naval. In addition, Naval was awarded the sum of P 261,177.75 as attorneys fees and other compensatory damages, P 3,000,000.00 as moral damages and another P 3,000,000.00 as exemplary damages. Petitioners apparently received a copy of the decision on 27 April 2000. [6] Thirteen days later, on 10 May 2000, they filed before the RTC a motion for reconsideration, later followed by a supplemental motion for reconsideration. Both motions were prepared for petitioners by Atty. Edgar B. Uytiepo. These motions recounted that Atty. Lagamon, Jr., on whom notice of pre-trial and other succeeding processes were served in behalf of petitioners, had already resigned effective 15 July 1999. Thus, the subsequent trial held without their participation violated their right to due process. The RTC in an order dated 26 July 2000 pointed out, among others, that Atty. Lagamon, Jr. had never formally withdrawn his appearance and that the service of subsequent orders and notices at his given address at Renaissance Bldg., Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, which was the same address as petitioners, was sufficient notice to petitioners. [7] Petitioners received a copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration on 11 August 2000. [8] Through Atty. Uytiepo, they filed a notice of appeal on the same day. However, they did not pay the docket fees contemporaneously with the filing of the notice. Instead, they obtained the postal money orders covering the docket fees from the Bacolod City post office only on 25 August 2000, or outside the reglementary period to appeal which, according to the RTC, expired on 13 August 2000. [9] Consequently, in an order dated 13 September 2000, the RTC denied the appeal of the petitioners and directed the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the judgment of the court. Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari assailing the 13 September 2000 order of the RTC disallowing the notice of appeal