Facts:

The case involves Segundo Amante as the petitioner and Hon. Delfin Vir. Sunga, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I, along with the Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation as the respondents. The events leading to this case began on December 2, 1974, when Amante filed a written motion with the trial court requesting a fifteen-day extension from December 9, 1974, to file his answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 7799, which was initiated by the Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation. Although a copy of this motion was provided to the plaintiff's counsel, it was addressed solely to the Clerk of Court, requesting immediate submission to the court. On December 6, 1974, the trial court granted Amante's motion for extension. However, on December 10, 1974, Amante filed a "Motion for Bill of Particulars," which was also properly addressed to the plaintiff's counsel, indicating that he would...

Facts:

1. Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer:
   On December 2, 1974, petitioner Segundo Amante filed a written motion with the trial court requesting a 15-day extension from December 9, 1974, to file his answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 7799 (Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation vs. Segundo Amante). The motion was addressed to the Clerk of Court, with a request to submit it to the court for consideration and resolution immediately upon receipt. A copy of the motion was furnished to the counsel for the plaintiff.

2. Grant of Extension:
   On December 6, 1974, the trial court granted the petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file his answer.

3. Motion for Bill of Particulars:
   On December 10, 1974, petitioner filed a "Motion for Bill of Particulars," which was appropriately addressed to the counsel for the plaintiff and scheduled for consideration on December 23, 1974.

4. Motion to Set Aside Extension Order:
   On December 11, 1974, private respondent Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation filed a motion to set aside the trial court's December 6, 1974, Order, alleging that the notice in petitioner's motion for extension was defective for non-compliance with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. The respondent also prayed that the petitioner be declared in default.

5. Withdrawal of Motion for Bill of Particulars:
   On February 7, 1975, after the respondent corporation showed its Articles of Incorporation, petitioner agreed to withdraw his Motion for Bill of Particulars, leaving the respondent's motion to set aside the extension order for resolution by the court.

6. Filing of Answer and Default Order:
   On the same date (February 7, 1975), petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim to the complaint. However, on February 14, 1975, the trial court set aside its December 6, 1974, Order, declared petitioner in default, and authorized the Clerk of Court to receive the plaintiff's evidence.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Ex Parte Nature of Motion for Extension:
   A motion for extension of time to file an answer is an ex parte motion, which does not require notice to the adverse party. The trial court has the discretion to grant such extensions, and the failure to provide notice does not deprive the adverse party of any substantial right.

2. Interruption of Time to File Answer:
   The filing of a Motion for Bill of Particulars interrupts the period for filing a responsive pleading. The moving party is entitled to the same time to serve his answer as he had at the time of serving the motion, but not less than five days.

3. Liberal Construction of Rules:
   The rules of procedure should be liberally construed to promote the objective of assisting parties in obtaining a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases. Default judgments should not be based on technicalities, especially when no real injury would result to the plaintiff by allowing the case to proceed on its merits.

The Supreme Court ordered the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and imposed costs against the private respondent.