G.R. No. 172204 - CATHAY METAL CORPORATION, VS. LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, this Court hereby declares that substituted service of the Consolidated Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim on the President of Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. has been effected. The latter is hereby given a period of fifteen (15) days from the delivery of said pleadings to the Clerk of Court within which to file their opposition to the Consolidated petition for cancellation of adverse claim. [20] Petitioner was later allowed to present its evidence ex parte. [21] Upon learning that a case involving its adverse claim was pending, respondent, through Mr. Orlando dela Peña, filed a manifestation and motion, alleging that respondent never received a copy of the summons and the petition. [22] It moved for the service of the summons and for a copy of the petition to be sent to No. 160, Narra Avenue, Looc, Calamba, Laguna. [23] The Regional Trial Court granted respondent's manifestation and motion on March 16, 2001. [24] It ordered that respondent be furnished with a copy of the petition at its new address. [25] Instead of furnishing respondent with a copy of the petition, petitioner filed on April 16, 2001 a motion for reconsideration of the March 16, 2001 Regional Trial Court order. [26] In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that the case was already submitted for decision after all of petitioners evidence had been admitted, and a memorandum had been filed. [27] Therefore, it was too late for respondent to ask the court that it be furnished with a copy of the petition. [28] Moreover, because respondent was already in default, a manifestation and motion, without allegations of grounds for a motion to lift order of default, would not give it personality to participate in the proceedings. [29] Petitioner sent a copy of the motion for reconsideration to respondent by registered mail and set the motion for hearing on April 20, 2001. [30] Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on the motion for reconsideration. On April 20, 2001, the Regional Trial Court submitted the motion for resolution. [31] Respondent received a copy of the motion for reconsideration after the hearing. On August 13, 2001, respondent filed a motion for leave to admit attached opposition [32] and opposition to petitioners motion for reconsideration of the March 16, 2001 Regional Trial Court order. [33] Respondent argued that since petitioners ex parte presentation of evidence was secured through extrinsic fraud, there should be a new trial to give respondent a fair day in court. [34] This was opposed by petitioner on September 6, 2001. [35] Petitioner emphasized its alleged compliance with the Cooperative Code rule on notices and respondents failure to file its comment despite the courts order that approved petitioners substituted service. [36] Petitioner further pointed out that it had always questioned the authority of Mr. dela Peña to act for respondent. [37] On January 16, 2003, the Regional Trial Court granted petitioner's mo