Case Summary (G.R. No. 168987)
Case Overview
The crux of the matter revolves around the validity of an Order dated February 14, 1975, by the respondent judge, which set aside a prior Order from December 6, 1974. This prior Order had granted Amante an extension of fifteen days to file his answer, yet the February Order called Amante in default, despite his earlier filing of an answer.
Procedural History
On December 2, 1974, Amante submitted a request to the trial court seeking a fifteen-day extension for his answer due by December 9, 1974. Although a copy of the motion was provided to the plaintiff's counsel, the motion was primarily addressed to the Clerk of Court. The trial court consented to the request on December 6, 1974. Subsequently, on December 10, Amante filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, which was again shared with the opposing counsel. Meanwhile, on December 11, the plaintiff corporation filed a motion to set aside the earlier Order, arguing that Amante’s notice was inconsistent with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, thus seeking a declaration of default against Amante.
Court's Rationale
The hearing for these motions occurred on February 7, 1975. On this date, Amante withdrew his Motion for Bill of Particulars after reviewing the plaintiff's Articles of Incorporation and subsequently submitted his answer along with a counterclaim. However, by the Order of February 14, 1975, the trial court deemed the initial notice of Amante's motion defective, consequently setting aside the December 6, 1974 Order, declaring Amante in default, and allowing the plaintiff to present their evidence.
Legal Principles and Findings
The Supreme Court, in evaluating the merits, recognized that motions for extension of time to plead are typically ex parte in nature and do not generally require notice to the opposing party unless the opposing party has a substantive right to resist. The Order of the trial court was deemed erroneous, as the alleged defect in notification did not deprive the respondent corporation of any substantial rights. The principles outli
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 168987)
Background of the Case
- The case originated from a civil complaint filed by Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation against Segundo Amante (Civil Case No. 7799).
- The main issue revolves around the validity of an Order issued by the respondent judge on February 14, 1975, which declared Amante in default despite his earlier filing of an answer.
Procedural History
- Petitioner Amante filed a motion on December 2, 1974, requesting a 15-day extension to file his answer due on December 9, 1974.
- The motion was granted by the trial court on December 6, 1974.
- On December 10, 1974, Amante also filed a "Motion for Bill of Particulars," indicating he intended to pursue that matter further.
- On December 11, 1974, the private respondent filed a motion to set aside the trial court's Order of December 6, arguing that the notice in Amante's motion was defective.
- The hearings on both motions were scheduled for February 7, 1975, where Amante agreed to withdraw his Motion for Bill of Particulars but filed his