Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406)
Facts:
On January 15, 2010, Vitarich Corporation (Petitioner) initiated a legal action against Femina R. Dagmil (Respondent) for the recovery of a sum of money, leading to Civil Case No. 33-M-2010 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 11 in Malolos City. Upon receiving the summons, Femina’s counsel, Atty. Nepthali Solilapsi, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue. However, the RTC denied this motion on August 17, 2010, and ordered Femina to file an answer. Despite receiving the order on November 3, 2010, Femina failed to respond. Consequently, Vitarich sought to declare her in default on January 5, 2011. During this period, Femina changed legal representation and Atty. Emilio Quianzon, Jr. entered his appearance, filing a motion to admit an answer on January 31, 2011. Nevertheless, the RTC declared Femina in default on February 8, 2011, allowing Vitarich to present its evidence ex-parte. The RTC subsequently issued a judgment on April 1, 2011, gran
...
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406)
Facts:
- Initiation of the Case
- Vitarich Corporation filed an action for a sum of money on January 15, 2010 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 11 of Malolos City, docketed as Civil Case No. 33-M-2010.
- Upon receipt of summons, Femina R. Dagmil’s counsel, Atty. Nepthali Solilapsi, moved to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue.
- Proceedings at the RTC
- The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on August 17, 2010 and ordered Femina to answer the complaint.
- Although Atty. Solilapsi received the order on November 3, 2010, Femina failed to file a responsive pleading.
- Vitarich moved to declare Femina in default on January 5, 2011, prior to which Femina’s new counsel, Atty. Emilio Quianzon, Jr., filed a motion to admit her answer on January 31, 2011.
- The RTC declared Femina in default on February 8, 2011, allowed Vitarich to present evidence ex parte, and later denied the motion to admit the answer on March 1, 2011.
- Judgment and Subsequent Relief Efforts
- On April 1, 2011, the RTC granted the complaint and ordered Femina to pay:
- Principal amount of ₱15,829,840.00 plus interest at 24% per annum from the filing of the complaint;
- Attorney’s fees of ₱200,000.00; and
- Costs of suit.
- Femina filed a petition for relief from judgment alleging her former counsel’s excusable negligence, citing:
- The misplacement of the order for filing an answer by the counsel’s secretary;
- Atty. Solilapsi’s health issues, which resulted in his infrequent attendance at the office;
- A motion for new trial on the ground of mistake and excusable negligence, along with a meritorious defense.
- The RTC, followed by motions for reconsideration, denied these relief efforts on June 7, 2012, and later on May 20, 2013.
- Intervention of the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Femina elevated her petition for certiorari before the CA (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131472) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in rendering the default judgment.
- On October 31, 2014, the CA reversed the RTC’s judgment of default and remanded the case for further proceedings, specifically ordering the admission of Femina’s answer.
- The CA held that Femina’s numerous post-judgment remedies demonstrated her intent to be heard and that the answer was filed prior to the RTC’s declaration of default.
- Underlying Circumstances Leading to the Default
- Femina’s motion to admit the answer was filed on January 31, 2011 via registered mail, which, under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, is considered filed on that date even if received later by the court.
- The delay in filing was partly attributed to:
- Atty. Solilapsi’s hospitalization due to Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Class 3, Intensive Phase) in January 2011;
- The administrative error of misplacing the order for answer filing.
- The factual record indicated that there was no intention by Femina or her counsel to delay the proceedings, and the delay did not prejudice Vitarich.
Issues:
- Whether the RTC properly declared Femina in default despite her filing a motion to admit her answer before the default order was officially issued.
- Assessment of whether Atty. Emilio Quianzon, Jr.’s January 31, 2011 motion to admit the answer should have been considered since it was filed before the RTC’s default declaration on February 8, 2011.
- Consideration of whether technical noncompliance (delay in filing beyond the reglementary period) justifies the stringent imposition of default when remedial measures were available.
- The Applicability of the Established Rules of Court on the Admission of Late Answers
- Whether the principle from Sablas v. Sablas—that an answer should be admitted if filed before a declaration of default and without prejudice to the opposing party—should control.
- The contrasting positions in Hernandez v. Agoncillo regarding the discretionary nature of accepting belated answers even when the defendant is not yet declared in default.
- Whether grave abuse of discretion occurred at the RTC by not considering the compelling circumstances that justified the belated filing of the answer, including the excusable negligence of Femina’s former counsel.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)