REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON'CITY

***

FIFTH DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff, CV Case No. 0186

For: Recovery of Ill-gottenWealth with Damages

-vs-

ATLAS TEXTILE &DEVELOPMENT INC., ET AL.,

Defendant.

Present:

LAGOS, l.,ChairpersonMENDOZA-ARCEGA, andCRUZ,JJ .. "

Promulgated:

---.Nov-eW'\bu 02, 1.01'10x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

MENDOZA-ARCEGA, .l.:

For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiff onSeptember 28, 2017.

In the said motion, the plaintiff avers that the Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Order Declaring Defendant Jose R. Tengco, Jr. in Default, filed by Atty. JessicaR. Vitug-Jurado, should have been denied as it was filed nine (9) months beyond theperiod prescribed by the Court. Moreover, while defendant Tengco claims that hehas been vigilant in protecting his rights, his actions and those of his children show

I~"

• Sitting as special member pursuant to i'.dministrative Order No. 025·2017 dated 1 February 2017.

ResolutionRepublic v. Atlas Textile & Development, Inc., et al.CV No. 0186

otherwise. Furthermore, it stressed that it is too late in the day to allow defendantTengco to present his evidence in view of the fact that the lone defendant, Alicia Ll.Reyes, who actively participated in the instant case, already filed a Formal Offer ofEvidence, which has already been acted upon by the Court, thus the termination ofthe presentation of evidence.

In response, defendant, through counsel, filed his Comment/Opposition,stating that the issues raised by the plaintiff are the very same issues raised in its July3,2017 Comment, which the Court already passed upon and resolved in the assailedresolution. As to the issue of his absence in conduct of the pre-trial, defendant saidthat he is willing to comply with the issues and stipulations contained in the Pre-Trial Order considering that issues raised by the parties during the pre-trial are thevery same issues contained in his Answer. Also the documents attached to hisAnswer are the same documents marked by the plaintiff during the Pre-Trial.Moreover, defendant was not asking for the invalidation of the proceedings in thepresent case, all he wants is a chance to present his own evidence in support of hisdefense.

Hence, this resolution.

The instant case is one for Recovery of Ill-Gotten Wealth and Damages. Whatis at stake is the right of the defendant to property, which is protected by no less thanthe Constitution, particularly Section 1, Article Ill, which states that No person shallbe deprived of life, liberty or property without due process oflaw ..

After the issuance of the Default Order, the defendant lost his right to presentevidence in support of his defense, which deprivation of right was attributable to thegross negligence of his counsel for not being vigilant of his client's interests. Suchnegligence or mistake of his former counsel proved to be prejudicial as the defendantwas effectively dispossessed of his right to adduce evidence that could exoneratehim from liability arising from the instant complaint, whose only fault was to reposehis faith and entrust his interests to his former counsel.

Under the circumstances and as stated in the assailed Resolution, the higherinterest of justice and equity demand that defendant be not punished for the blundercommitted by his counsel. In this particular case, to adhere by the general rule issynonymous with condoning or tolerating such mistake or negligence rather thanpenalizing a serious injustice to the defendant.

In the case of People vs. Del Mundo', the Supreme Court explained that"Court litigations are primarily for the search for truth, and a liberal interpretationof the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofsis the best way to ferret out such truth."

Finally, while the Court is not unmindful of the fact that there must be an endto litigation nor is it indifferent to the cause of the plaintiff, nevertheless the Court

~::::::'S~~~:2~o~9:e speedy dispositionof casesshould giveway toif21Page

p/

ResolutionRepublic v. Atlas Textile & Development, Inc., et al.CV No. 0186

higher interest of justice. In the case of Amberti v. Court of Appeals.i the SupremeCourt maintained that although a speedy determination of action implies a speedytrial, speed is not the chief objective of a trial. Also, that more than convenience ofthe courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of justice and fairness are moreimportant than a race to end the trial.

All told, for failure of the plaintiff to present new matters that could warrantthe reversal of the subject resolution, the Court finds no cogent reason to set asidethe same. In view thereof, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED forlack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

A-ARCEGA

WE CONCUR:

~LAGOSChairperson

AL P. CRUZAssociate Justice

2 G.R. No. L-41808 March 30, 1979,89 S':RA 240, 249-250.

31Page