Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. v. Fermida Construction Services
G.R. No. 191353
April 17, 2017
FACTS:
On December 8, 2003, Fermida entered into a contract agreement with Ultra Mar for the construction of a warehouse in Wawandue, Subic, Zambales (project) with a contract price of 1,734,74. After completing the Project on January 17, 2004, Fermida sent to Ultra Mar a Billing Statement exclusive cost of variation of orders and extra work orders made. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Fermida secured a Surety Bond to satisfy the 10% retention to cover any defect in materials and workmanship. However, Fermida received a letter from Ultra Mar expressing discontentment on some of the former’s work. Resultantly, Fermida undertook the repairs and another Billing Statement were thereafter sent to Ultra Mar.
Because of Ultra Mar’s failure to comply with its obligations, Fermida demanded payment not only of the contract price but for the cost of the variations as well. Ultra Mar stated that it did not ask for variations on the Project but only rectifications as the work done by Fermida was below standard. The case was then set for pre-trial conference. Despite several resetting, counsel for Ultra Mar failed to attend the Pre-Trial conference and failed to file the required pre-trial brief.
Ultra Mar through counsel filed an Omnibus Motion to Lift Order of Default, Admit attached Pre-Trial Brief and set the Case for Pre-trial Conference ( Omnibus Motion) alleging the his failure to Pre-Trial brief was due to the intermittent nausea he was experiencing. Ultra Mar moved for reconsideration and attached thereto its counsel’s Medical Certificate. The RTC denied the same for being a second motion for reconsideration. Ultra Mar partially moved for reconsideration essentially arguing that it was denied the right to present evidence due to the gross negligence of its former counsel. The CA denied Ultra Mar’s partial motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in not relieving the petitioner from the effects of gross negligence of its counsel.
RULING:
Prefatorily, it bears to emphasize that as the Rules of Civil Procedure presently stand, if the defendant fails to appear for pre-trial, a default order is no longer issued. Hence, the failure of a party to appear at pre-trial has adverse consequences: if the absent party is the plaintiff then he may be declared non-suited and his case is dismissed; if the absent party is the defendant, then the plaintiff may be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgement on the basis thereof. What constitutes a valid cause is subject to the court’s sound discretion and the exercise of such discretion shall not be disturbed except in cases of clear and manifest abuse. Thus, Section 4, Rule 18 requires the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial conference. To convince the Court that its counsel was indeed grossly negligent, Ultra Mar cites said counsel's disbarment and the case filed against him for malversation pending before the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite. These instances, however, cannot support a pronouncement as to counsel's gross negligence. For one, these events have no direct bearing to the instant case.
Despite Ultra Mar’s contentions regarding its counsel’s negligence, Ultra Mar would nevertheless point an accusing finger at its counsel for the latter’s gross negligence. However, nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of a counsel are binding on the client.
No comments:
Post a Comment