G.R. No. L-6450 - Makabenta vs. Bocar

On September 30, 1950, Filomeno R. Negado filed a complaint in the Justice of the Peace Court of Carigara, Leyte, seeking the recovery of a sum of money from Gonzalo Makabenta.
The complaint was properly filed within the prescribed period.

Within the allowed period, defendant Gonzalo Makabenta filed his answer to the complaint and simultaneously raised a counterclaim, thereby putting in his appearance before the court.
After the issues were joined, the case was set for trial on September 18, 1951.
Despite having filed an answer, defendant Makabenta failed to appear at the trial session.

In the absence of the defendant, the plaintiff moved that Makabenta be declared in default.
The Justice of the Peace Court declared Makabenta in default and ordered the plaintiff to present his evidence.
A judgment was subsequently rendered in favor of the plaintiff on November 24, 1951.
Defendant Makabenta received a copy of the judgment on December 8, 1951, which was his first notice indicating that he had been declared in default and that a default judgment had been entered against him.

Following the judgment, defendant Makabenta filed an appeal to the Court of First Instance of Leyte in Civil Case No. 1453, with pleadings filed by both parties.
On July 20, 1952, the plaintiff-appellee, Filomeno R. Negado, filed a motion for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that Makabenta had been declared in default at the level of the Justice of the Peace Court.
The Court of First Instance upheld the motion, dismissing the appeal on the basis that Makabenta had no standing to appeal unless the default order was first set aside.
A motion for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal was filed by Makabenta but was denied.

Defendant Makabenta subsequently filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The petition sought the annulment of the order dismissing his appeal and requested that the court set the case for trial on its merits.
The petition emphasized that although Makabenta had failed to appear during the trial, his earlier filing of the answer constituted his appearance, thereby negating the ground for default.
The petition argued that the order declaring him in default was illegal and without effect, citing established jurisprudence on the matter.

Whether Gonzalo Makabenta, by filing an answer to the complaint, effectively put in his appearance and thereby should not have been declared in default, despite his failure to appear at trial.
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing Makabenta’s appeal on the basis that he had been declared in default, without first setting aside the default order.
Whether the dismissal of the appeal constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on part of the Court of First Instance.