Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 213 views

    CASE #130 Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. vs. Fermida Construction Services G.R. No. 191353, April 17, 2017 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harlene
    Ultra Mar Aqua Resource refused to pay Fermida Construction Services for construction costs, alleging substandard work and delays. When Ultra Mar failed to attend multiple pre-trial conferences and submit required filings, the court declared them in default and allowed Fermida to present evidence unopposed, ruling in Fermida's favor. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling, finding Ultra Mar liable to pay most costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, as Ultra Mar's counsel's excuses did not constitute valid cause to excuse non-compliance, and a client is bound by its counsel's negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CASE #130 Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. vs. Fermida Construction Services G.R. No. 191353, April 17, 2017 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harlene
    213 views2 pages
    Ultra Mar Aqua Resource refused to pay Fermida Construction Services for construction costs, alleging substandard work and delays. When Ultra Mar failed to attend multiple pre-trial conferences and submit required filings, the court declared them in default and allowed Fermida to present evidence unopposed, ruling in Fermida's favor. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling, finding Ultra Mar liable to pay most costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, as Ultra Mar's counsel's excuses did not constitute valid cause to excuse non-compliance, and a client is bound by its counsel's negligence.

    Original Title

    130. 277 2017

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ultra Mar Aqua Resource refused to pay Fermida Construction Services for construction costs, alleging substandard work and delays. When Ultra Mar failed to attend multiple pre-trial conferences and submit required filings, the court declared them in default and allowed Fermida to present evidence unopposed, ruling in Fermida's favor. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling, finding Ultra Mar liable to pay most costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, as Ultra Mar's counsel's excuses did not constitute valid cause to excuse non-compliance, and a client is bound by its counsel's negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    213 views2 pages

    CASE #130 Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. vs. Fermida Construction Services G.R. No. 191353, April 17, 2017 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harlene
    Ultra Mar Aqua Resource refused to pay Fermida Construction Services for construction costs, alleging substandard work and delays. When Ultra Mar failed to attend multiple pre-trial conferences and submit required filings, the court declared them in default and allowed Fermida to present evidence unopposed, ruling in Fermida's favor. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling, finding Ultra Mar liable to pay most costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, as Ultra Mar's counsel's excuses did not constitute valid cause to excuse non-compliance, and a client is bound by its counsel's negligence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE #130

    ULTRA MAR AQUA RESOURCE, INC. vs. FERMIDA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES


    G.R. No. 191353, April 17, 2017

    FACTS:
    Respondent Fermida Construction Services (Fermida) commenced a Complaint for Collection
    of Sum of Money against petitioner Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc., (Ultra Mar) for the unpaid
    obligations on construction costs of a warehouse pursuant to the parties' agreement. Ultra Mar
    refused to pay because of Fermida's alleged failure to submit the FDT Report and Building Permits,
    and substandard work and delay in the completion of the Project. The scheduled pre-trial conference
    on August 9, 2004 was postponed upon motion of Ultra Mar's counsel and was then re-scheduled to
    August 17, 2004. This was again reset to September 7, 2004. Despite several resettings, counsel for
    Ultra Mar failed to attend the pre-trial conference and failed to file the required pre-trial brief. As a
    result, the RTC declared Ultra Mar in default and allowed Fermida to present its evidence  ex parte.
    RTC rendered a decision ordering Ultra Mar to pay Fermida the amount of P1,106,000.38 and
    damages. On appeal, the CA ruled that Ultra Mar was indeed liable to pay Fermida the construction
    cost of P1,106,038.82 but subject to the 10 percent retention.
    Ultra Mar essentially argues that it should have been allowed to present its evidence because
    its non-appearance at the pre-trial conference and failure to file pre-trial brief were attributable to its
    counsel's gross negligence for which it should not be made to suffer the consequences. Ultra Mar
    further postulates that it has a meritorious defense which could lead the RTC to rule otherwise had it
    been presented.

    ISSUE:
    Whether RTC's Order declaring Ultra Mar in default, allowing Fermida to present its
    evidence ex parte and thereafter, rendering judgment on the basis thereof, proper.

    HELD:
    Yes. The failure of a party to appear at pre-trial has adverse consequences: (1) if the absent
    party is the plaintiff then he may be declared non-suited and his case is dismissed; (2) if the absent
    party is the defendant, then the plaintiff may be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the
    court to render judgment on the basis thereof. By way of exception, the non-appearance of a party
    and counsel may be excused if (1) a valid cause is shown; or (2) there is an appearance of a
    representative on behalf of a party fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to
    submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts
    and of documents. 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.
    Ultra Mar's counsel repeatedly moved for the postponement of the pre-trial conference, and yet
    still failed to appear. The justifications advanced by Ultra Mar's counsel for its repeated failure to
    comply with the RTC's Order to appear at the Pre-Trial Conference, to submit the Pre-Trial Brief and
    to present the supporting Medical Certificate (intermittent nausea as a result of a sudden drop in his
    blood sugar level) do not constitute a valid cause to excuse such non-compliance. 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.

    You might also like