This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| While petitioner now raises a factual issue as to whether or not the counsel for respondent actually arrived in court four (4) minutes late on November 27, 2001, there is nothing on record to show that the allegation of the counsel for respondent on this factual matter was disputed before the trial court. Hence, the CA did not err when it found that the respondent only failed to arrive on time for the pre-trial, instead of finding that there was failure to appear and lack of interest on the part of the respondent. Under this factual setting, the CA properly applied our ruling in Africa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,[4] which set aside the order of default issued by the trial court due to the ten-minute delay of petitioner's counsel, ratiocinating that:.. petitioner was declared in default ... for his lawyer's ten-minute delay at the pre-trial ... | |||||
|
2006-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Upon the other hand, Africa v. Intermediate Appellate Court[34] illuminates the proper standard within which to view the instant petition. It appeared therein that on the day of the pre-trial, counsel for the defendant (therein petitioner) had arrived ten minutes after the case was called. Within that ten-minute span, the trial court had issued an order in open court declaring the defendant in default and authorizing the plaintiff to present its evidence ex parte. A mere two days later, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court reversed the trial court, holding that the order of default was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The reasoning of the Court was grounded primarily on the doctrinal rule that frowned against "the injudicious and often impeluous issuance of default orders,"[35] which led in that case to "a deni[al of the defendant's] basic right to be heard, even after his counsel had promptly explained the reason for his tardiness at the pre-trial."[36] | |||||