ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 100633.December 12, 2001]

SORIANO et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2001.

G.R. No.100633(Socorro Abella Soriano & Sabino Padilla, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. David C. Naval, Deogracias Reyes & Rosalina N. Reyes.)

G.R. No. 101550(Spouses Deogracias R. Reyes and Rosalina N. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals and Socorro Abella Soriano.)

Socorro Abella Soriano, having died last February 4, 1997, the "Estate of Socorro Abella Soriano, represented by Sabino Padilla, Jr., Judicial Administrator" is hereby substituted for her as petitioner in G. R. No. 100633 and as respondent in G. R. No. 101550.

With respect to the motion for clarification/partial reconsideration, petitioners submit that with the ruling that the lower court erred in admitting the "supplemental complaint" of respondents Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes, the order of the lower court declaring petitioners in default for failure to appear at pre-trial held on February 9, 1990, should likewise be set aside. Petitioners submit that a clarification of this point is needed because a pre-trial had been conducted and terminated on March 27, 1989. In fact, a pre-trial order dated March 27, 1989 was issued by the lower court stating that the pre-trial had terminated and the parties were ordered to be ready for a hearing on the merits on May 22, 1989. ¹ Annex "O", Petition in G.R. No. 100633.

Considering that the Court ruled that the supplemental omplaint of respondents Deogracias and Rosalina Reyes contained "matters entirely different from and even contrary to the cause of action stated in the original complaint", it follows that the second pre-trial hearing conducted by the 'lower court on February 9, 1990, under thc supplemental complaint could not serve as a valid basis for declaring petitioners in default. The pre-trial which was held on March 27, 1989, on the basis of the original complaint and the answer thereto may stand and, hence, petitioners could not be considered in default when the main case (Civil Case No. RTC 88-1587) is tried on the merits.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court resolves to clarify that the case below (Civil Case No. RTC 88-1587) may proceed to trial on the original complaint and the pre-trial had thereon.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE