Explanation rule explained. Rule 13

See --  Supreme Court of the Philippines
See  -  http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/news/2012/11/11291202.php

"x x x.

SC: Failure to Explain Service By Registered Mail Not Automatically Subject to Sanction

Posted: November 29, 2012; By Bianca M. Padilla

The Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic sanction should a party fail to submit the required explanation for resorting to service by registered mail rather than personal service.

In a six-page decision penned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the Court's Third Division unanimously held that both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan (Branch 37) and the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse their discretion when both courts ruled against the striking out of the motion for judgment by default filed by private respondent Roberto and Arabela Arcinue (Arcinues) against petitioner Natividad Lim (Lim) for failure of the Arcinues to submit the aforesaid required explanation.

The Court pointed out Rule 13, Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure “does not provide for automatic sanction should a party fail to submit the required explanation. It merely provides for that possibility considering its use of the term ‘may.’” Moreover, the same “does not altogether prohibit service by registered mail when such service, when adopted, ensures as in this case receipt by the adverse party.” It noted that Lim’s counsel in fact even admitted to receiving a copy of the Arcinues’ motion 10 days before the scheduled hearing on the said motion. The Court thus directed the RTC to proceed with the hearing and adjudication of the case.

National Power Corporation (NPC) filed an expropriation suit against petitioner Lim for its Coal-Fired Thermal Power Project. Private respondents Arcinue spouses filed a motion for leave to admit their complaint-in-intervention, alleging that they owned and were in possession of one of the lots subject of the expropriation. The RTC granted the Arcinues’ motion and required both NPC and Lim to answer the complaint-in-intervention within 10 days from receipt of its order. Because NPC and Lim failed to file their respective answers, the Arcinues filed a motion for judgment by default. Lim then sought to expunge the motion for lack of the requisite explanation why the Arcinues resorted to service by registered mail rather than personal service. Both the RTC and the CA ruled against this, prompting her to file a petition with the Court. (GR No. 178789, Lim v. NPC, November 14, 2012).

x x x."