G.R. No. 200134 - Otero vs. Tan

Roger Tan filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money and damages against Roberto Otero in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) on July 28, 2005.
Tan alleged that Otero purchased petroleum products on credit from his Petron outlet, amounting to P270,818.01, between February 2000 and May 2001.
Otero failed to respond to the complaint despite being served with summons through his wife on August 31, 2005.
Tan filed a motion to declare Otero in default on November 18, 2005, which Otero opposed, claiming he did not receive the summons.
The MTCC declared Otero in default after he failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, allowing Tan to present evidence ex parte.

On February 14, 2007, the MTCC ruled in favor of Tan, ordering Otero to pay the claimed amount along with attorney's fees and litigation costs.
The MTCC concluded that Otero's failure to file an answer constituted a tacit admission of Tan's claims.
Otero appealed the MTCC decision, arguing that it was factually baseless and that he was deprived of due process.

The RTC affirmed the MTCC's decision on December 28, 2007, finding the evidence presented by Tan sufficient to establish Otero's debt.
The RTC dismissed Otero's due process claims, stating he was properly served and had opportunities to respond.
Otero's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Otero filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, asserting that the lower courts erred in admitting Tan's evidence.
The CA denied Otero's petition on April 29, 2011, ruling that Otero waived his defenses by not filing an answer and was deemed to have knowledge of Tan's claims.
Otero's motion for reconsideration was also denied.

The primary issues for resolution were whether Otero could raise the failure of Tan to authenticate the statements of account in the appellate proceedings and whether Tan proved the material allegations of his complaint.

The Court denied Otero's petition, agreeing with the CA that Otero waived his defenses by being declared in default.
A defendant in default loses the right to present defenses but retains the right to appeal on limited grounds.
The Court clarified that while a defaulting party cannot present evidence, they can still appeal based on the plaintiff's failure to prove material allegations.