4/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 234491, February 26, 2020 ]
KENNETH C. DUREMDES, PETITIONER, VS. CAROLINE G. JORILLA,
RODOLFO C. DE LEON, MANOLITO SIOSON,[*] ELMER B. GASANG,
MICHAEL DE CASTRO, GENNETE E. RIVERA, SYLVIA ORBASE, IRENE
MAGSOMBOL, NENITA R. DOMAGUING, AND CHERILYN PALMA,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
INTING, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Application for a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of
the Resolutions dated July 25, 2017[2] and September 26, 2017[3] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151644. The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari
filed by Kenneth Duremdes (petitioner) and affirmed the Decision[4] dated July 21,
2016 of Branch 97, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City that denied petitioner's
Petition for Relief from Judgment due to lack of merit.
Antecedents
On August 27, 2009, respondents Caroline G. Jorilla, Rodolfo C. De Leon, Manolito
Sioson, Elmer B. Gasang, Michael De Castro, Gennete E. Rivera, Sylvia Orbase, Irene
Magsombol, Nenita R. Domaguing, and Cherilyn Palma (collectively, respondents) filed
a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages[5] against petitioner and a
certain Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr.[6] (Manginsay). The case was docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-09-65496. In their Complaint, respondents sought the recovery of payments
they allegedly made to Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc. (VCAII) as the
latter's alleged victims of illegal recruitment.[7] Respondents alleged that petitioner and
Manginsay were majority stockholders of VCAII.[8]
On March 20, 2014, the RTC rendered its Decision[9] awarding the respondents actual
and moral damages.[10] In the Decision, the RTC explained that summons was served
upon petitioner and Manginsay by publication in the March 29 to April 4, 2010, April 5
to 11, 2010, and April 12 to 18, 2010 issues of Viewliner Weekly News.[11] However,
petitioner and Manginsay failed to file their respective answers or any responsive
pleading. Thus, upon respondents' motion, the RTC declared petitioner and Manginsay
in default and allowed respondents to present their evidence ex parte.[12]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374
1/16