You are on page 1of 2

DULOS vs.

CA TOPIC: RULE 9

AUGUST 7, 1990
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
PETITIONER: SPS JUAN AND MARIA DULOS
RESPONDENTS: CA, SPS MARIANO AND ANACORETA NOCOM, SPS LORENZO ONG
ENG CHONG AND CARMEN SOCO, DEPUTY SHERIFF HONORIO SANTOS

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENT


COMPLAINT FOR
MeTC LAS PINAS FORCIBLE ENTRY
Set Pre-trial Conference (Sps Nocom)

COMPLAINT FOR RTC MAKATI


ANNULMENT OF SALE,
RECONVEYANCE OF
TITLE AND OTHER
RELIEFS WITH PRAYER
FOR WRIT OF PI

(Before scheduled PTC)


MOTION TO SUSPEND
PROCEEDINGS IN THE MeTC LAS PINAS
FORCIBLE ENTRY CASE Declared Ps in default
-prejudicial question of Denied Motion to Suspend
ownership in annulment case Proceedings (ownership not a
prejudicial question)
-did not appear at PTC with Rendered Judgment in Rs’ favor
counsel; sent sister with SPA to
represent Juan Dulos
MR MeTC LAS PINAS
DENIED
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
FOR CERTIORARI AND RTC MAKATI
PROHIBITION WITH P.I. (Pending)

MOTION TO EXECUTE
MeTC LAS PINAS JUDGMENT
GRANTED -no appeal filed by Ps
-final and executory
RTC MAKATI dismissed petition for certiorari
-Ps properly declared n default; RTC action not a valid reason to suspend MeTC proceedings; MR
fatally defective, not verided and accompanied by affidavit of merit; grant of motion for suspension
discretionary
PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI AND CA
PROHINITION WITH P.I. Denied application for PI

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE


DULOS vs. CA TOPIC: RULE 9

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION


FOR CERTIORARI AND
PROHINITION
SC:
 Rts were impaired bec
DENIED
they were prevented from
presenting evidence in their
defenses

DISCUSSION:
1. A case may be dismissed for failure of a party to appear at the PTC (Rule 20, Sec. 2, ROC)
- Juan’s sister did appear at the scheduled PTC but did not present her SPA to represent P
or even the medical certificate of his operation; Dulos lawyer who asked for suspension
did not show up either
2. Denial of the application for P.I. was justified bec Ps did not employ proper remedies
available to a defendant declared in default, under ROC, as follows:
a. [before judgment] Motion under oath to set aside order of default (ground: failure to
answer or appear due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence)
b. [after judgment but before finality] Petition for New trial
c. [after judgment has become final and executory] petition for relief
d. Appeal (ground judgment contrary to evidence or the law)
3. Ps did not avail of the above remedies; they instead filed a MR after taking no action for 60
days after the MeTC decision; then a petition for certiorari and prohibition after denial of
MR
4. A special civil action of certiorari is and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal, where
the latter remedy is available
5. Ps did not move to set aside order of default by the MeTC despite their knowledge of such
order
6. Suzara v. Caluag: Defendant declared in default is not entitled to “notice of subsequent
proceedings”, hence, Ps’ argument that they could not have taken any action prior to the
rendition of the judgment because they had never been furnished with copies of the order
declaring them in default, is unacceptable.
7. Yap v. Tanada: MR of a judgment of default can be considered a petition for relief if:
a. Verified
b. Filed within 60 days from discovery of decision but not more than 6 mos from entry of
judgment
c. Motion accompanied by affidavits of merit showing fraud, accident, mistake and
excusable negligence
8. MR can be considered a motion for new trial if accompanied by affidavit of merit
9. In this case, the MR filed by Ps with the MetC was not verified; also not accompanied by an
affidavit of merit; no circumstance of excusable negligence or meritorious defense shown

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE