Case Digest (G.R. No. 112795) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In the case of Augusto Capuz vs. The Court of Appeals and Ernesto Banez (G.R. No. 112795, June 27, 1994), the petitioner, Augusto Capuz, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30030. The private respondent, Ernesto Banez, initiated a complaint for a sum of money against Capuz at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Kalookan City, on July 15, 1992. After being properly served with summons on September 5, 1992, Capuz failed to file an answer, compelling Banez to submit an Ex Parte Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on September 25, 1992. On October 23, the trial court declared Capuz in default, allowing Banez to present his evidence ex parte on October 28, 1992. Subsequently, on November 6, 1992, the trial court issued a decision ordering Capuz to pay a principal amount of P90,000, with additional interests, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. Capuz receive Case Digest (G.R. No. 112795) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Private respondent Ernesto Banez filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Augusto Capuz before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Kalookan City (Civil Case No. C-15501) on July 15, 1992.
- Petitioner's summons was served on September 5, 1992, but he failed to file an answer within the prescribed time.
- Proceedings at the Trial Court
- On September 25, 1992, after petitioner's inaction, respondent filed an Ex Parte Motion to Declare Defendant in Default.
- The trial court, on October 23, 1992, issued an order declaring petitioner in default and authorizing respondent to present his evidence ex parte, which was later presented on October 28, 1992.
- A decision was rendered on November 6, 1992, ordering petitioner to pay:
- Principal amount of ₱90,000.00 with 12% per annum interest from June 13, 1992, until paid in full;
- ₱10,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
- ₱1,000.00 for litigation expenses and costs.
- Petitioner's Post-Judgment Actions
- On November 13, 1992, petitioner received copies of the order declaring default (dated October 23, 1992) and the subsequent decision (dated November 6, 1992).
- On November 23, 1992, petitioner filed a verified motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision, asserting:
- His failure to respond was due to fraud, mistake, accident, or excusable neglect;
- Upon receipt of the summons, he immediately confronted the respondent with the payment receipt; and
- The respondent had assured him that he would withdraw the complaint.
- Subsequent Motions and Orders
- On December 7, 1992, the trial court denied petitioner's verified urgent motion on the ground that the filing did not stop the running of the appeal period and that petitioner had already exhausted his right by not filing a timely appeal from the decision.
- On December 23, 1992, petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, challenging:
- The premature issuance of the December 7 Order;
- The trial court’s holding that the decision had become final; and
- The order being contrary to law and jurisprudence.
- The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on January 6, 1993, by the trial court.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals.
- On November 18, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the following grounds:
- The motion to lift the order of default and set aside the judgment was improper due to the prior rendering of a judgment by default;
- The appropriate remedial measures were an appeal from the decision or a motion for new trial under Rule 37; and
- The motion was not accompanied by a separate affidavit of merit, disqualifying it as a proper motion for new trial.
- Petitioner's Arguments in the Instant Petition
- Petitioner's contention was that his verified motion should be treated as a motion for new trial under Rule 37.
- He argued that:
- The grounds alleged—fraud, mistake, accident or excusable negligence resulting in his failure to answer—were the same as those required for a motion for new trial;
- His meritorious defense, particularly the prior payment evidenced by a receipt, invalidated the respondent’s claim; and
- The affidavit of merit need not be a separate document as its contents were incorporated in the verified motion.
Issues:
- Whether the verified motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision could be considered a valid motion for new trial under Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- Whether the incorporation of the affidavit of merit within the verified motion suffices without requiring a separate document.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim that his failure to answer was due to excusable neglect (fraud, mistake, or accident) and that he has a meritorious defense is sufficient to merit reopening the case.
- The propriety of the trial court and the Court of Appeals' approach regarding the petitioner's available remedies.
- Whether petitioner’s appeal under Section 2, Rule 41 could substitute for filing a motion to lift the order of default, given that he still had time within the appeal period.
- Whether the petitioner was deprived of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law when the lower courts opted against treating his verified motion as a motion for new trial.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)