Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40491)
Facts:
- Petitioner Segundo Amante filed a motion on December 2, 1974, requesting a 15-day extension from December 9, 1974, to file his answer in Civil Case No. 7799.
- The motion was addressed to the Clerk of Court and requested immediate consideration.
- The trial court granted the motion on December 6, 1974.
- On December 10, 1974, Amante filed a "Motion for Bill of Particulars," properly addressed to the plaintiff's counsel and set for hearing on December 23, 1974.
- On December 11, 1974, the private respondent corporation filed a motion to set aside the December 6 order, alleging non-compliance with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, and requested that Amante be declared in default.
- On February 7, 1975, Amante withdrew his Motion for Bill of Particulars after the respondent corporation showed its Articles of Incorporation and filed his answer with a counterclaim on the same day.
- Despite this, on February 14, 1975, the trial court set aside its December 6 order, declared Amante in default, and authorized the Clerk of Court to receive the plaintiff's evidence.
- Amante questioned the validity of this order, leading to the present action.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Yes, the motion for extension of time to file an answer was properly granted ex parte.
- Yes, the trial court erred in setting aside its order gran...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court held that a motion for extension of time to file an answer is not a litigated motion requiring notice to the adverse party but rather an ex parte motion.
- Such motions are permissible in procedural matters and situations where notice or delay might defeat the objective of the motion.
- The Court cited Section 1 of Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows the trial court to permit the submission of an answer even after the time fixed in the rules.
- Granting an extension is within the sound discretion of the court.
- The respondent private corporation was not deprived of any substantial right due to the alleged defect in the notice of Amante's motion.
- The pendency of a motion for a bill of particulars interrupts the period within which to file ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40491)
Facts:
In the case of "Amante v. Suñga," the petitioner, Segundo Amante, filed a written motion on December 2, 1974, requesting an extension of fifteen (15) days from December 9, 1974, to file his answer to a complaint in Civil Case No. 7799, where Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation was the plaintiff. This motion was addressed to the Clerk of Court with a request for immediate consideration by the court. The trial court granted this motion on December 6, 1974. Subsequently, on December 10, 1974, Amante filed a "Motion for Bill of Particulars," which was properly addressed to the plaintiff's counsel and set for hearing on December 23, 1974. However, on December 11, 1974, the private respondent corporation filed a motion to set aside the trial court's December 6 order, alleging that Amante's motion for extension was defective due to non-compliance with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, and requested that Amante be declared in default. On February 7, 1975, Amante withdrew his Motion for Bill of Particulars after the respondent corporation showed its Articles of Incorporation, and he filed his answer with a counterclaim on the same day. Despite this, the trial court, on February 14, 1975, set aside its December 6 order, declared Amante in default, and authorized the Clerk of Court to receive the plaintiff's evidence. Amante then questioned the validity...