SC: Marcos general Ver, others deprived of due process in damage suit

The Supreme Court has ruled that Fabian Ver, the military chief of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, and other servicemen were denied due process in a damage suit filed against them in 1994 by former military detainees.   In a 24-page decision penned by Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, the Supreme Court’s Third Division affirmed a Court of Appeals ruling that said the Quezon City court erred in its decision ordering Ver and the others to each pay P350,000 in damages to the petitioners.   Ver was the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines under the Marcos regime and highly regarded as the most trusted military officer of the late dictator.    After Marcos was ousted through the historic People Power Revolution in 1986, Ver went into exile in the United States and died in Thailand due to emphysema in November 1998. His remains were brought back to the Philippines and buried in his hometown of Ilocos Norte.   In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that Ver and the others where declared in default based on a mode of service — service of notice to file answer by publications — that is not provided for in the Rules of Court and is therefore "defective."   "The rules on service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other papers were not strictly followed in declaring the respondents in default," the court said.   The Quezon City court handed down its ruling in 1993, but some of the respondents appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that they were denied their right to be heard.   The CA ruled in favor Ver and the other respondents and reversed the Quezon City court decision.   In an Aug. 17, 1990 ruling, the Quezon City court ordered the respondents to report their addresses and whereabouts so they would be properly notified of the proceedings.   The Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeals, said it viewed the decision as an "attempt" to serve a notice to file an answer by personal service and/or by mail.   "[However] these proper and preferred modes of service were never resorted to," the high court said.   The Supreme Court said a third mode of service — substituted service or delivering a copy to the clerk of court — was likewise not resorted to by the local court.   "Instead, the regional trial court authorized an unrecognized mode of service under the Rules, which was notice to file answer by publication," the court said.   The high court said the Quezon City court should have been more patient and "should not have simply abandoned the preferred modes of service when the petitioners failed to comply with its August 17, 1990 order with the correct addresses."   Concurring with the decision were Justices Presbitero Velasco, Diosdado Peralta, Roberto Abad, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe. - Mark D. Merueñas/KBK, GMA News