This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Seeking relief from Section 2, Rule 1 (now Section 6[9]), and Section 2, Rule 20 (now Section 4, Rule 18[10]) of the Revised Rules of Court, and invoking our pronouncements in Rinconada Telephone Company, Inc. v. Buenviaje,[11] Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[12] and Alonso v. Villamor,[13] the petitioner asserts that although respondent judge has the discretion to declare a defendant in default for failure to appear during pre-trial conference, the strict, rigid and arbitrary application thereof denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present its meritorious defense, refute the evidence of the private respondents, present his own, and exercise his right to due process. The petitioner contends that the rules should be liberally construed in order to protect the substantive rights of the parties. | |||||