Petitioner stated that he was to present 6 witnesses without naming them.It was only on 28 August that Philamlife presented its evidence ex parte, despite the unresolved motion for reconsideration of the 3 June order. In Corpuz v. It made no mention at all that they would be barred from testifying unless they were named. In addition, an officer who is not a director may also appoint other agents when so authorized by the by-laws or by the board of directors. Notice was properly given in this instance. Ricardo Lumantas and Atty. The plaintiffs cited Sec. Note that nowhere in the first aforementioned provision was the word "default" mentioned. Record of pre-trial. This misgiving, however, stems from a misreading of the Rules. This could not have been the intention of the Rules. There should be no cause for confusion, and the trial court is not required to explicitly state that the dismissal is with prejudice. It also stated that it would be the height of injustice if the Republic is deprived of due process and fair play. Record of pre-trial.
In not dismissing the petition for certiorari outright, and in not ruling that such remedy is the wrong mode of judicial review, the CA committed grave and reversible error. The scheduled May 25, hearing, however, did not push through, since the trial court judge went on official leave.The Sps V insisted that this was not proper authority required by law for it was not executed by the BOD of Citibank 2. It was however amended in the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. In his Pre-trial Order, 20 however, the trial judge did not exercise his discretion to exclude the unlisted or unnamed witnesses. The records bear out that the pre-trial conference has been reset for six times, for various reasons. The bank officer would affix his signature on the personal checks, and Cresencio Velez would then deposit his priorly approved personal checks to his current account and at the same time withdraw sums therefrom by way of bank's manager's check. Some courts consider it a mere technicality, serving no useful purpose save perhaps, occasionally to furnish ground for non-suiting the plaintiff, or declaring a defendant in default, or, wistfully, to bring about a compromise. Ferguson in this case, clothing him with authority to direct and manage corporate affairs.
Bellosillo, ed. Philamlife claims that respondent was absent the four 4 times that the case was called for pre-trial on 3 and 17 December8 May and 3 June Baz, Jr.
The Facts The facts are undisputed.
The fundamental issue is whether or not the RTC erred in declaring respondent in default and allowing Philamlife to present its evidence ex parte. In the same vein, respondents did not challenge it before the trial.