Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Held:
(1) In all the pre-trial conferences scheduled by the lower court,
petitioner has never appeared nor does the record show that she had
executed an SPA, in favor of either her Atty-In-Fact (Miguel Logarta)
or her counsel of record, to serve as the written authority to represent
her in said pre-trial conferences, with power to compromise the case.
Thus, the lower court had the discretion to dismiss the case for her or
her counsels failure to appear at the last scheduled pre-trial, June
11.
(2) The explanation given in the MR as to why counsel arrived late in
court was unsatisfactory. The affidavit by the secretary was not even
supported with a medical certificate to substantiate the claim of
illness. Moreover, it makes no sense that the secretary allegedly
arrived in the office at 9am, while counsel arrived in court 10 minutes
after 8:15amthe scheduled conference.
(3) Petitioners counsel alleged that he was armed with an SPA, but did
not show the scope, extent and limits of authority granted him.
Moreover, the said SPA was only allegedly executed by petitioners
Atty-In-Fact Logarta, the scope, extent and limits also not shown.
But the record does not show that petitioner had executed an SPA in
favor of his counsel of record or Atty-In-Fact. Thus, the court is left
without any idea as to the nature and extent of the alleged authority,
which have to be proven. Sec. 23, Rule 138 of the ROC states that a
special authority is required for Atty.s to compromise the litigation
of their clients. While it does not state that said authority must be in
writing, the court has reason to expect that if the same is not in
writing, it must be duly established by evidence other than the selfserving assertion of counsel that such authority was given to him.
Fallo: Respondent judge therefore did not act erroneously, much less in
grave abuse of discretion, in denying petitioners MR because authority to
compromise cannot rightly be presumed. And if, with good reason, the judge
is not satisfied that said authority exists (as in this case), dismissal for nonappearance of petitioner is in order.
(4) Petitioner, thus, filed this action claiming there was grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing her complaint.
Issue: W/N an SPA to appear at pre-trial and enter into a compromise has to
be proven and that authority cannot be presumed. (YESmust prove)