Jonathan Landoil International Co., Inc. v.

Spouses Mangudadatu

G.R. No. 155010, August 16, 2004

Facts:

 Respondent- spouses Mangudadatu, initially filed before the RTC a complaint for damages
against petitioner, Jonathan Landoil International Co., Inc.
 The parties submitted their respective Pretrial Briefs and the trial proceeded without the
participation of petitioner.
 Petitioner received a copy of the RTC’s decision and later filed an Omnibus Motion for New Trial
and Change of Venue that was eventually denied by the trial court.
 Petitioner received a copy of a Writ of Execution and eventually filed a Motion to Quash/Recall
Writ of Execution alleging that it had yet to receive a copy of an Order resolving the Omnibus
Motion for New Trial.
 Petitioner’s two counsels submitted separate withdrawals of appearance and the Ong Abad
Santos & Meneses Law Firm filed an Entry of Appearance with Supplement to Motion to
Quash/Recall Writ of Execution. As supplement, petitioner attached the affidavits of the
previous counsel that they had not yet received a copy of the Order resolving the Omnibus
Motion for New Trial.
 The Petitioner received Sheriff’s Notice regarding the public auction sale of its properties.
Consequently, the latter filed a petition for Prohibition before the CA.
 The RTC issued an order directing the respondents to file their written comment on the Motion
to Quash and then scheduled a hearing thereon.
 Petitioner received a copy of respondent’s Vigorous Opposition (Re: Motion to Quash Writ of
Execution) attached with Certifications supposedly issued by the postmaster affirming that the
Order denying the Motion for Trial had been received by petitioner’s two previous counsel of
record.
 Petitioner personally served counsel for respondents a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral
Examination of Attys. Mario and Peligro. It was intended to prove that petitioner had not
received a copy of the Order denying the Omnibus Motion for New Trial.
 Separate notices were sent by the deposition officer to Attys. Mario and Peligro, as witnesses,
for them to examine the transcript of their testimonies, which later was submitted to the RTC
via registered mail.
 The CA denied the Petition for Prohibition and the RTC denied the Motion to Quash

Issue: