Case Summary (G.R. No. 112795)
Key Dates
- July 15, 1992: Banez filed the complaint against Capuz.
- September 5, 1992: Summons served to Capuz.
- September 25, 1992: Banez filed a motion to declare Capuz in default due to failure to file an answer.
- October 23, 1992: Trial court declared Capuz in default and allowed Banez to present evidence ex parte.
- November 6, 1992: Trial court rendered a decision in favor of Banez.
- November 13, 1992: Capuz received the order and decision.
- November 23, 1992: Capuz filed a motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision.
- December 7, 1992: Trial court denied Capuz's motion.
- January 6, 1993: Trial court denied Capuz's motion for reconsideration.
- November 18, 1993: The Court of Appeals dismissed Capuz's petition for certiorari.
Applicable Law
The legal framework applicable to this case is primarily derived from the Revised Rules of Court, specifically provisions concerning default judgments, motions for new trial, and certiorari. The analysis revolves around Rule 41 on Appeals and Rule 65 regarding Certiorari.
Default Judgment and Procedural History
The procedural history indicates that after Banez filed his complaint, Capuz was served with summons but failed to respond, prompting Banez to file a motion for default. The trial court subsequently declared Capuz in default, which led to an ex parte decision favoring Banez. Capuz attempted to lift the default through various motions, asserting that his failure to respond was due to excusable neglect influenced by Banez's assurances that the complaint would be withdrawn.
Petitioner's Arguments and Legal Justification
In the petition for certiorari, Capuz argued that his verified motion to lift the order of default should be treated as a motion for new trial under Rule 37, where the grounds included fraud and the existence of a meritorious defense, specifically his prior payment of the obligation. He contended that the verification in his motion sufficed to replace a separate affidavit of merit required by Rule 37, citing previous jurisprudence which supported the idea that essential defenses need not be restated in a separate document but could be included in the verified motion itself.
Court of Appeals' Rationale and Error
The Court of Appeals dismissed Capuz's appeal on the grounds that once a judgment by default was rendered, Capuz's options were limited to either filing a motion for a new trial or appealing the decision. It asserted that Capuz’s motion to lift was improper as it was filed after the judgment. However, the Supreme Court found that Capuz's motion was, in essence, appropriate and that he still had time to appeal when he filed the motion, illustrating a misunderstanding of the procedural law by the low
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 112795)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court aimed at reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30030.
- The case originated from a complaint for a sum of money filed by private respondent Ernesto Banez against petitioner Augusto Capuz in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Kalookan City.
Factual Background
- On July 15, 1992, Ernesto Banez filed a complaint for a sum of money against Augusto Capuz.
- Petitioner was served with summons on September 5, 1992, but failed to file an answer.
- On September 25, Banez filed an Ex Parte Motion to Declare Defendant in Default due to Capuz's inaction.
- The trial court issued a default order on October 23, and Banez presented his evidence ex parte on October 28.
- A decision was rendered by the trial court on November 6, 1992, ordering Capuz to pay Banez various amounts totaling P101,000.00, including interest and attorney’s fees.
Procedural History
- Capuz received the trial court's order and decision on November 13, 1992.
- On November 23, he filed a verified motion to lift the order of d