Lim v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No. 178789, November 14, 2012

Lim v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No.
178789, November 14, 2012

REOBERTO A. ABAD, J., G.R. No. 178789 November 14, 2012
FACTS: Respondent National Power Corporation filed an expropriation suit

against petitioner Natividad B. Lim before the RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan
covering Lots 2373 and 2374 that the NPC needed for its Sual Coal-Fired Thermal
Power Project. Since Lim was residing in the United States, the court caused the
service of summons on her on February 20, 1995 through her tenant, a certain
Wilfredo Tabongbong.
On March 1, 1995, upon notice to Lim and the deposit of the provisional
value of the property, the RTC ordered the issued writ of possession in NPC's favor
that would enable it to cause the removal of Lim from the land. Lim, represented
by her husband Delfin, filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the action and to
suspend the writ of possession, questioning the RTC's jurisdiction over Lim's
person and the nature of the action. She also assailed the failure of the complaint to
state a cause of action. The RTC denied the motions. Respondent spouses Roberto
and Arabela Arcinue filed a motion for leave to admit complaint in intervention,
alleging that they owned and were in possession of Lot 2374, one of the two lots
subject of the expropriation.
On January 7, 1997 the RTC granted the Arcinues' motion and required both
the NPC and Lim to answer the complaint-in-intervention within 10 days from
receipt of its order. When Lim and the NPC still did not file their answers to the
complaint-in-intervention after 10 months, on December 7, 1998 they filed a
motion for judgment by default. Lim sought to expunge the motion on the ground
that it lacked the requisite explanation why the Arcinues resorted to service by
registered mail rather than to personal service. At the scheduled hearing of the
motion, Lim's counsel did not appear. The NPC for its part manifested that it did
not file an answer since its interest lay in determining who was entitled to just
compensation.
On March 1, 1999 the RTC issued an order of default against both Lim and
the NPC. The RTC pointed out that the Arcinues' failure to explain their resort to
service by registered mail had already been cured by the manifestation of Lim's
counsel that he received a copy of the Arcinues' motion on December 7, 1998 or 10
days before its scheduled hearing. Lim filed a motion for reconsideration to lift the
default order but the Court denied the motion, prompting Lim to file a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 52842.
On March 23, 2007 the CA rendered a decision that affirmed the RTC's
order of default. Lim filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied it,
prompting her to file the present petition for review. On September 24, 2007 the
Court initially denied Lim's petition but on motion for reconsideration, the Court
reinstated the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in affirming the
order of default that the RTC entered against Lim.
HELD/RULING: No, the CA did not gravely abused its discretion in

affirming the orders of the RTC.
Lim points out that an answer-in-intervention cannot give rise to default
since the filing of such an answer is only permissive. But Section 4, Rule 19 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the original parties to file an answer to the
complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from notice of the order admitting the
same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. This changes the procedure
under the former rule where such an answer was regarded as optional. Thus, Lim's
failure to file the required answer can give rise to default. The trial court had been
liberal with Lim. It considered her motion for reconsideration as a motion to lift the
order of default and gave her an opportunity to explain her side.
The court set her motion for hearing but Lim's counsel did not show up in
court. She remained unable to show that her failure to file the required answer was
due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. And, although she
claimed that she had a meritorious defense, she was unable to specify what
constituted such defense. Lim points out that the RTC should have ordered the
Arcinues' motion for judgment by default expunged from the records since it
lacked the requisite explanation as to why they resorted to service by registered
mail in place of personal service. There is no question that the Arcinues' motion
failed to comply with the requirement of Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure which provides: SECTION 11. Priorities in modes of service and
filing. — Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other
papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the
court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation, why
the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause
to consider the paper as not filed. But the above does not provide for automatic
sanction should a party fail to submit the required explanation. It merely provides
for that possibility considering its use of the term "may."
The question is whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in not
going for the sanction of striking out the erring motion. The Court finds no such
grave abuse of discretion here. As the RTC pointed out, notwithstanding that the
Arcinues' failed to explain their resort to service by registered mail rather than by
personal service, the fact is that Lim's counsel expressly admitted having received
a copy of the Arcinues' motion for judgment by default on December 7, 1998 or I0
days before its scheduled hearing. This means that the Arcinues were diligent
enough to file their motion by registered mail long before the scheduled hearing.
Personal service is required precisely because it often happens that hearings do not
push through because, while a copy of the motion may have been served by
registered mail before the date of the hearing, such is received by the adverse party
already after the hearing. Thus, the rules prefer personal service. But it does not
altogether prohibit service by registered mail when such service, when adopted,
ensures as in this case receipt by the adverse party’s reconsideration but the CA
denied it, prompting her to file the present petition for review. On September 24,
2007 the Court initially denied Lim's petition but on motion for reconsideration,
the Court reinstated the same

Lim v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No. 178789, November 14, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Lim v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No. 178789, November 14, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lim v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No.

178789, November 14, 2012

FACTS: Respondent National Power Corporation filed an expropriation suit

HELD/RULING: No, the CA did not gravely abused its discretion in

You might also like