Case Summary (G.R. No. L-40491)
Motion for Extension of Time
- Petitioner filed a written motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, addressed to the clerk of court.
- The motion was granted by the court on December 6, 1974.
- Subsequently, a motion for a bill of particulars was filed by the petitioner.
- Before compliance with the bill of particulars, the respondent corporation filed a motion to set aside the December 6 order, citing a defective notice.
Court's Default Order
- The respondent court set aside its December 6 order on February 14, 1975, declaring the petitioner in default.
- The court authorized the clerk of court to receive evidence from the plaintiff.
- This action prompted the petitioner to question the validity of the February 14 order.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Ex Parte Motions
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that a motion for extension of time to file an answer can be heard and granted ex parte.
- The court emphasized that the respondent corporation was not deprived of any substantial rights due to the alleged defect in notice.
- The default order and the denial of the motion for reconsideration were set aside.
Nature of Ex Parte Motions
- A motion for extension of time is not a litigated motion requiring notice to the adverse party.
- Ex parte motions are permissible in procedural matters and emergencies, allowing for timely relief without delay.
- The court has the discretion to permit the submission of an answer even after the time fixed by the rules.
Impact of Motion for Bill of Particulars
- The pendency of a motion for a bill of particulars interrupts the period for filing a responsive pleading.
- The moving party is entitled to the same time to serve their answer as they had at the time of serving the motion.
- The petitioner’s withdrawal of the bill of particulars did not negate the filing of his answer on the same day.
Examination of Default Orders
- Default judgments are not based on the merits and can lead to significant injustice for the defendant.
- The court must carefully examine the circumstances surrounding the issuan...continue reading