Scribd
Upload
235 views2 pages

Ventanilla Vs Tan

- Adelina Tan and Alfredo Tan leased property from O. Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation but breached the lease agreement. Ventanilla sued in regional trial court (RTC) and won. - The Tans appealed but Ventanilla was granted a motion for execution pending appeal, resulting in levies on the Tans' properties. The Tans paid the RTC judgment. - Only Adelina Tan continued appealing and the court of appeals (CA) ruled against some damages awarded by the RTC. Ventanilla claimed the CA decision was not final due to its counsel passing away. - The Supreme Court ruled against Ventanilla, saying parties have a duty to notify courts of counsel changes and

Uploaded by

akimo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
235 views2 pages

Ventanilla Vs Tan

- Adelina Tan and Alfredo Tan leased property from O. Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation but breached the lease agreement. Ventanilla sued in regional trial court (RTC) and won. - The Tans appealed but Ventanilla was granted a motion for execution pending appeal, resulting in levies on the Tans' properties. The Tans paid the RTC judgment. - Only Adelina Tan continued appealing and the court of appeals (CA) ruled against some damages awarded by the RTC. Ventanilla claimed the CA decision was not final due to its counsel passing away. - The Supreme Court ruled against Ventanilla, saying parties have a duty to notify courts of counsel changes and

Uploaded by

akimo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

180325               February 20, 2013

O. VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Petitioner,


vs.
ADELINA S. TAN and SHERIFF REYNANTE G. VELASQUEZ, Presiding
Judge,* Respondents.

Facts

Alfredo S. Tan and Adelina S. Tan were lessees of petitioner. In view of Tans’
breach of the lease contract, petitioner filed a complaint against them for
cancellation and termination of contract of lease with the Cabanatuan City (RTC).
RTC Decision in favor of the plaintiff Oscar Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation
and against the defendants Alfredo S. Tan, Sr. and Adelina S. Tan

The Tans appealed. Petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal and
the same was granted. Several properties and bank accounts of private
respondent and Alfredo S. Tan were levied upon. The Tans decided to pay as
ordered in the RTC Decision; the trial court issued Orders lifting and cancelling
the Notice of Levy on private respondent Adelina Tan's properties and also on
several bank accounts in the name of the Tans.

Only the appeal of herein private respondent Adelina S. Tan (docketed as CAG.
R. CV No. 58817) proceeded in due course, resulting in a decision that deleted
the awards of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to petitioner. It became
final and executory on November 21, 2002, per the Entry of Judgment issued by
the CA.

Private respondent Adelina Tan then filed with the trial court a Motion for
Execution, praying for the refund of the excess payment she made covering the
exemplary damages, attorney's fees and liquidated damages that were deleted in
the CA decision.

Petitioner filed with the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 58817, an Omnibus Motion (with
entry of appearance), praying that the entry of judgment be recalled, lifted and
set aside. Argued that its counsel, Atty. Liberato Bauto died on March 29, 2001,
hence, any notice sent to him must be deemed ineffective; that the CA Decision
did not attain finality because petitioner's counsel, who died while the case was
pending before the CA, was unable to receive a copy thereof.
Meanwhile, the RTC granted private respondent’s motion for execution. MR
denied. CA dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari.

As to petitioner's Omnibus Motion (with entry of appearance); CA Resolution


stated that the prayer for recall of judgment cannot be granted, as petitioner's
bare assertion, that its former counsel had not received notices of orders,
resolutions or decisions of the court because said counsel died while the appeal
was pending, does not qualify as one of those cases where the court allowed
such recall.

ISSUE: W/N the CA decision did not attain finality for lack of notice to the
petitioner in view of the death of its counsel

HELD: NO

It is the party's duty to inform the court of its counsel's demise, and failure to
apprise the court of such fact shall be considered negligence on the part of said
party.

It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress of a case, whether
the law firm or partnership representing one of the litigants continues to exist
lawfully, whether the partners are still alive, or whether its associates are still
connected with the firm.

Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the
judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence. The
circumstances of this case plainly show that petitioner only has himself to blame.
Neither can he invoke due process. The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard.

Where a party, such as petitioner, was afforded this opportunity to participate but
failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If said
opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the
constitutional guarantee.

Thus, for failure of petitioner to notify the CA of the death of its counsel of record
and have said counsel substituted, then service of the CA Decision at the place
or law office designated by its counsel of record as his address, is sufficient
notice. The case then became final and executory when no motion for
reconsideration or appeal was filed within the reglementary period therefor.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy