Case Summary (G.R. No. 251830)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Extradition Petition
In 2001 the DOJ filed a petition under the RP–US Extradition Treaty and PD No. 1069 seeking spouses Rodriguez’s surrender to the U.S. for insurance-fraud, grand-theft and bribery charges in Los Angeles. Eduardo submitted to extradition in 2003; Imelda remained in the Philippines and did not file a responsive pleading.
Procedural History Before the RTC
Between 2001 and 2013 the petitioner filed various interlocutory motions but no answer. The RTC repeatedly ordered an answer. In August 2013 the DOJ moved to declare default. The motion was denied but the court warned of default if no answer were filed. On November 18, 2016 the RTC dismissed the petition for extradition for lack of incidents; on April 25, 2017 it granted the DOJ’s reconsideration motion, reinstated the case, and set presentation of evidence for June 15, 2017.
Oral Declaration of Default
On June 15, 2017 respondent’s counsel orally moved to declare petitioner in default for failure to answer. The RTC granted the motion in open court, permitted ex parte presentation of evidence, and refused subsequent motions to lift default. Petitioner’s verified motion to set aside default (with an appended answer) was denied in RTC resolutions of June 28 and November 22, 2017, and her petition for certiorari (assailing default orders and related rulings) was likewise dismissed in March 2018. The RTC then rendered a decision granting extradition on April 19, 2018.
CA Proceedings and Ruling
The CA consolidated petitioner’s certiorari petition and her appeal of the extradition decision. On September 13, 2019 it (1) dismissed the certiorari petition as moot in light of the pending appeal, and (2) affirmed the RTC’s grant of extradition after finding all treaty and procedural requirements satisfied, including the double-criminality rule and probable cause. Its February 20, 2020 resolution denied reconsideration, prompting this Rule 45 appeal.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA erred in declining to resolve the validity of the RTC’s default orders.
- Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioner in default.
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the extradition grant.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Default Orders
The Court held that the certiorari issues challenging the RTC’s default orders were not rendered moot by the extradition decision or the appeal, and that the CA should have adjudicated their validity. Under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a default declaration requires (a) a written motion by the claiming party, (b) notice to the defendi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 251830)
Antecedents
- In 2001, the U.S. Government, through the Philippine DOJ, filed a petition for extradition of spouses Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda G. Rodriguez before RTC Manila, Branch 19.
- Charges against both:
- Presenting Fraudulent Claims (five counts) under Cal. Ins. Code § 556(a)(1) with special allegations under Cal. Penal Code §§ 12022(6)(a), 12022(6)(b), 1203.045(a).
- Grand Theft of Personal Property (two counts) under Cal. Penal Code § 487(1) with same special allegations.
- Attempted Grand Theft (three counts) under Cal. Penal Code §§ 664/487(1).
- Additional charge against petitioner: Bribery (two counts) under Cal. Penal Code § 67 for allegedly offering $5,000 to law enforcers on November 6, 1985.
- Alleged facts: spouses Rodriguez unlawfully collected over $151,000 from life–insurance policies on Gloria Gener (petitioner’s mother) by falsely reporting her death or petitioner’s death, while both were alive in Los Angeles County.
- Eduardo voluntarily availed of extradition on June 4, 2003; petitioner elected to remain in the Philippines.
Procedural History
- RTC repeatedly ordered petitioner to file an answer (2001–2009); she filed various procedural motions instead of an answer.
- June 2, 2009: RTC warned that failure to answer within 15 days would constitute waiver. Petitioner still did not answer.
- August 13, 2013: DOJ moved to declare petitioner in default.
- January 5, 2015: RTC denied default motion but gave petitioner 15 days to answer. No answer followed.
- November 18, 2016: RTC dismissed extradition petition for respondent’s counsel unprepared at trial setting.
- April 25, 2017: RTC granted reconsideration, reinstated case, set reception of evidence for June 15 or June 29, 2017.
- June 15, 2017: Hearing proceeded despite petitioner’s main counsel unavailability; RTC, upon an oral motion, effectively declared petitioner in default and directed ex parte presentation of respondent’s evidence.
- June 28 and July 27, 2017: RTC denied four pending motions of petitioner, confirmed default, and barred further pleadings.
- November 22, 2017 & March 14, 2018: RTC denied petitioner’s motions to set aside default and her motion for reconsideration, admitted respondent’s exhibits ex parte, and o