Raffle of Cases With Injunction Prayers: Notice Rules and Exceptions

The raffle of cases is a routine step in Philippine litigation, but it becomes critical when a complaint includes a prayer for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Under the rules, such cases must generally be raffled only after notice to, and in the presence of, the adverse party. But what happens when some defendants cannot be located despite diligent efforts? The Supreme Court addressed this in Gonzales v. State Properties Corporation (G.R. No. 140765, January 25, 2001), clarifying the exceptions to the notice requirement and preventing procedural rules from becoming a tool for delay.

The Facts of the Case

State Properties Corporation filed a complaint for recovery of property against Gonzalo Gonzales and his siblings, all heirs of the late Benito Gonzales. The complaint included an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The case was raffled to Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, and summons was served on Gonzales.

Gonzales later filed an Omnibus Motion asking for another raffle, claiming the other defendants did not receive notice of the raffle as required by Administrative Circular No. 20-95. Meanwhile, State Properties filed a motion for service of summons by publication on the other defendants, stating their residences could not be ascertained despite diligent inquiry. The trial court granted this motion.

When the case was set for another raffle, Gonzales again objected because the other defendants were not notified. The trial court initially agreed and cancelled the raffle, but later reconsidered and set the case for regular raffle. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and Gonzales elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether a case may be raffled even when some parties could not be served notice because their whereabouts are unknown.

The Applicable Rule: Section 4(c), Rule 58

The Supreme Court examined Section 4(c), Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which incorporated Administrative Circular No. 20-95. The rule states that when an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO is included in a complaint or initiatory pleading filed in a multiple-sala court, the case shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. Such notice must be preceded or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons.

However, the rule provides a crucial exception: the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons does not apply when summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or when the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent, or is a nonresident.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court held that when service of summons may be dispensed with, the notice of raffle and the presence of the adverse party must likewise be dispensed with. As the Court explained, the case must be raffled first before the court can act on a motion for leave to serve summons by publication. Requiring notice to parties whose whereabouts are unknown would create an impossible situation.

The Court rejected Gonzales' interpretation, noting that it would allow defendants to bar a trial court from acting on a case simply by concealing their whereabouts. This would result in absurdity and should not be countenanced.

The Court also pointed out that Gonzales himself had been duly served and given notice of the raffle. He had no standing to complain on behalf of the other defendants, as he did not claim to represent them. In any event, the other defendants were eventually located and served, and they never complained of any impropriety in the raffle.

The Distinction Between Issuance and Enforcement

The Court also clarified the relationship between the issuance of a writ and the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant. Citing earlier jurisprudence, the Court noted that a writ may be issued upon commencement of the action, but its enforcement requires that the court first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The notice requirement in the 1997 Rules ensures that the writ of preliminary injunction can be implemented and prevents the defense that the trial court lacks jurisdiction.

Practical Takeaways

• Notice before raffle is the general rule. For cases with injunction or TRO prayers filed in multiple-sala courts, the raffle must generally be held only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party, with summons served beforehand or simultaneously.
• Exceptions exist for unlocatable parties. If summons cannot be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or if the party is temporarily absent or a nonresident, the notice and service requirements may be dispensed with.
• The raffle must proceed first. In cases involving unknown or unlocatable defendants, the case must be raffled before the court can act on a motion for service of summons by publication.
• No standing to raise others' rights. A party who has been properly served cannot complain about lack of notice to other defendants unless he or she represents them.
• Procedural rules should not cause absurd results. The rules are designed to ensure fairness, not to allow parties to evade litigation by concealing their whereabouts.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.