Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
KENRICK DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August 8, 2006
x------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial courts order
which declared respondent in default for its failure to file a valid
answer? Yes, it did.
1. While Atty. Garlitos denied signing the answer, the fact was
that the answer was signed. Hence, the pleading could
not be considered invalid for being an unsigned pleading.
The fact that the person who signed it was neither known
to Atty. Garlitos nor specifically authorized by him was
immaterial. The important thing was that the answer
bore a signature.
2. While the Rules of Court requires that a pleading must be
signed by the party or his counsel, it does not prohibit a
Rule 9.01 ― A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of
the Bar in good standing.
As a final note, the Court cannot close its eyes to the acts
committed by Atty. Garlitos in violation of the ethics of the legal
profession. Thus, he should be made to account for his possible
misconduct.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The May 31,
2001 decision and August 20, 2001 resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 52948 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the February 19, 1999 resolution of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City, Branch 114 declaring respondent in default is
hereby REINSTATED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Bennie A. Adefuin-de la Cruz (now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices
Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Josefina Guevara-Salonga of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of
Appeals; rollo, pp. 35-43.
[2]
Id., pp. 62-64.
[3]
SEC. 3. Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating
in either case his new address which should not be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of
his knowledge, information and belief there is a good ground to support it; and that it is not
interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion,
allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended to delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or
signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails
to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action.
[4]
Resolution dated February 19, 1999 in Civil Case No. 96-1144; rollo, pp. 65-69.
[5]
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 52948.
[6]
These circumstances included Atty. Garlitos knowledge that somebody signed the answer for him yet allowed its
filing in court; he did not protest the signing of the answer by another person; he admitted that he was the
one who drafted the answer and he did not disown its contents; after the filing of the answer, he continued
to represent respondent in Civil Case No. 96-1144.
[7]
Herrera, REMEDIAL LAW, Vol. V, 1999 edition, Rex Bookstore, p. 371.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 03 April 2001, 356 SCRA 108.
[10]
Section 797 on Evidence, 29A AmJur 2d 174 citing United States v. Costanzo, (CA2 NY) 581 F2d 28.
[11]
Id. citing United States v. Weaver, (CA8 Ark) 565 F2d 129.
[12]
Id. citing United States v. Di Giovanni, (CA2 NY) 544 F2d 642.
[13]
Id. citing United States v. King, (CA2 NY) 56 F2d 122.
[14]
Id. citing United States v. Johnson, (CA8 Mo) 529 F2d 581.
[15]
A transcript of the proceedings of the November 26, 1998 Senate hearing was even attached to the comment as
an annex.
[16]
See note 3 supra.
[17]
Ruben E. Agpalo, LEGAL ETHICS, 6th edition (1997), pp. 236-237.
[18]
U.S v. Ney, 8 Phil. 146 (1967).
[19]
Trimica, Inc. v. Polaris Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. L-29887, 28 October 1974, 60 SCRA 321.
[20]
327 Phil. 780 (1996).
[21]
Social Security System v. Chaves, G.R. No. 151259, 13 October 2004, 440 SCRA 269.