Case Summary (G.R. No. 210164)
Petitioner–Respondent procedural posture
Respondent filed a petition for extradition in 2001 against spouses Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda G. Rodriguez. Eduardo voluntarily surrendered to U.S. authorities in 2003; petitioner remained in the Philippines. Petitioner repeatedly failed to file an answer despite multiple RTC orders between 2001 and 2016. The RTC dismissed the extradition petition on November 18, 2016 but reinstated it by resolution dated April 25, 2017. On June 15, 2017 the RTC, after an oral request by respondent’s counsel, treated petitioner as in default and directed ex parte reception of respondent’s evidence. The RTC denied petitioner’s motions to set aside the default and other reliefs, and on April 19, 2018 rendered a decision granting the petition for extradition. The CA consolidated petitioner’s certiorari challenge to the default orders and her appeal from the RTC decision, dismissed the certiorari petition as moot and affirmed the extradition decision on September 13, 2019, with denial of reconsideration on February 20, 2020. The Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated matters and resolved principally that the default orders were void and that the CA erred in failing to resolve that issue.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in disregarding the challenge to the RTC’s order declaring petitioner in default when it resolved the consolidated proceedings. 2. Whether the RTC properly declared petitioner in default and properly denied her motion to set aside that default. 3. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision granting extradition (note: the Supreme Court resolved only the first two issues and remanded for further proceedings).
Governing legal framework
The Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution’s due process guarantees as the constitutional basis for assessing procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. For procedural rules, the Court relied on Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Court (as retained by later amendments), which prescribes that a court may declare a defending party in default only upon (1) motion of the claiming party, (2) notice to the defending party, and (3) proof of failure to answer within the allowed time; and specifies remedies including a motion under oath to set aside the default for fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and the existence of a meritorious defense. The Court also relied on jurisprudence explaining the consequences of default and the limited scope of appellate review when judgment is rendered in default.
Supreme Court’s view on the consolidation and justiciability
The Court found that the certiorari petition challenging the validity of the default orders and the appeal from the extradition decision were properly consolidated before the CA and that the validity of the default order was not rendered moot by the subsequent RTC decision. The Court reasoned that if the default order were void, the ex parte reception of evidence and the RTC decision based on that reception would be nullities; therefore, the CA should have adjudicated the default-order challenge as part of the consolidated proceedings rather than dismissing it as moot. The Court cited its own prior guidance that where a certiorari petition supervenes an appeal, the appellate division handling the appeal should address the jurisdictional errors raised so as to avoid procedural impasses.
Requirements and purpose of default rules
The Court reiterated the tripartite requirements under Section 3, Rule 9: a written motion must be filed by the claiming party, the defending party must be given notice of the motion, and proof must be made showing failure to answer within the prescribed period. The rule’s purpose is to avoid prejudice and surprise and to protect the defendant’s right to defend. The Court emphasized that the rule does not permit a trial court to declare default motu proprio; doing so would make the court an advocate for the claiming party and would violate due process.
Why the RTC’s declaration of default was defective
The Supreme Court identified multiple fatal defects. First, the RTC relied on an oral motion made in open court on June 15, 2017 rather than acting on a properly filed written motion with prior notice; the prior written motion filed by respondent in August 2013 had been denied by the RTC in January 2015 and therefore could not serve as a live basis for the June 15, 2017 declaration. Second, the oral motion did not satisfy the notice requirement and deprived petitioner of the opportunity to prepare and oppose the motion — precisely the procedural safeguard the rule protects. Third, the counsel present at the June 15, 2017 hearing had appeared only by special appearance for the limited purpose of moving inhibition and was not the main counsel who had responsibility for the case; the main counsel had manifested unavailability, and the RTC itself had provided an alternative date in its April 25, 2017 reinstatement order in case of counsel unavailability. Proceeding on June 15 despite that unavailability contravened the RTC’s own scheduling instruction and further heightened the denial of a meaningful opportunity to be represented. For these reasons the Court concluded that the order of default was issued in patent violation of both the Rules of Court and petitioner’s right to due process under the Constitution.
Errors in the RTC’s denial of the motion to set aside default
Because the default order was issued without compliance with the rule’s filing and notice requirements and in violation of the court’s own scheduling order, the Court held that the RTC should have vacated the default on its own motion or granted petitioner’s verified motion to set aside the default. The Court noted that the grounds invoked by petitioner — namely, the procedural irregularities and deprivation of opportunity to be heard — attacked the very root of the proceedings, and that denial of the motion on the basis of lack of an affidavit of merit was improper where the motion itself was verified and contained reasons and facts constituting the prospective defense. The Court emphasized the policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits and the general disfavour for judgments by default.
Legal consequences determined by the Supreme Court
Because the default order and the resulting ex parte reception of respondent’s ev
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 210164)
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 13, 2019 and Resolution dated February 20, 2020 in consolidated CA-G.R. SP No. 155299 and CA-G.R. CV No. 111132.
- The petition assails Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Manila orders that: (a) declared petitioner Imelda G. Rodriguez in default; (b) denied her motion to set aside the order of default in Civil Case No. 01-190375 (extradition case); and (c) the RTC decision granting the petition for extradition filed by the Government of the United States of America (represented by the Philippine Department of Justice).
- The Supreme Court limited its disposition to the first two issues (validity of default orders and denial of motions to set aside) and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Antecedent Facts (as alleged in the extradition petition)
- In 2001, the respondent (U.S. Government, represented by the Philippine DOJ) filed a Petition for Extradition against spouses Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda G. Rodriguez to extradite them to the United States to stand trial in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District.
- Charges alleged against the spouses included:
- Presenting Fraudulent Claim (five counts) in violation of Section 556(a)(1) of the California Insurance Code with special allegations of Penal Code Sections 12022(6)(a), 12022(6)(b) and 1203.045(a).
- Grand Theft of Personal Property (two counts) in violation of Section 487(1) of the California Penal Code with the same special allegations.
- Attempted Grand Theft of Personal Property (three counts) in violation of Section 664/487(1) of the California Penal Code.
- Additional allegation against petitioner: Bribery (two counts) in violation of Section 67 of the California Penal Code.
- Specific allegations set out in the petition:
- Between November 4, 1984 and September 18, 1985 the spouses fraudulently collected $51,134.65 on a life insurance policy on Gloria Gener (petitioner’s mother) by falsely claiming Gloria died from a stroke when she was in fact alive and living with them in Los Angeles County.
- Eduardo allegedly filed false claims with four life insurance companies and collected $100,000 from one policy by falsely indicating petitioner had been killed while in the Philippines when she was alive in Los Angeles County.
- After arrest on November 6, 1985, petitioner allegedly offered a $5,000 bribe to each law enforcer transporting her to jail to secure release.
- Respondent alleged the offenses were extraditable under Article 2 of the RP–US Extradition Treaty.
Procedural History in the RTC (chronology and key orders)
- Spouses Rodriguez did not file an Answer; they filed various motions from 2001–2009 addressing procedural and jurisdictional matters, bail, and requests to defer filing an answer.
- June 4, 2003: Eduardo voluntarily went to the U.S.; his extradition case declared closed. Petitioner remained in the Philippines.
- RTC repeatedly ordered petitioner to file an Answer; June 2, 2009 Order required petitioner to file within 15 days or be deemed to have waived her right.
- Petitioner did not file an answer; instead filed motions from 2009–2013 on procedural rules, deferments, clarifications and seeking to declare respondent in default.
- August 13, 2013: Respondent filed a written motion to declare petitioner in default for failure to file an answer.
- January 5, 2015: RTC denied respondent’s August 13, 2013 motion but again gave petitioner 15 days to file an answer or be declared in default.
- November 18, 2016: RTC dismissed the petition for extradition after respondent’s counsel was unprepared to present evidence when ordered to do so; petitioner’s counsel had moved for dismissal and it was granted.
- April 25, 2017: RTC granted respondent’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated Case No. 01-190375; scheduled reception of respondent’s evidence for June 15, 2017 (or June 29, 2017 if counsel unavailable).
- June 13, 2017: Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration of RTC’s April 25, 2017 Resolution and a Humble Motion for Inhibition through counsel on special appearance.
- June 15, 2017 hearing: RTC Order records that respondent’s counsel prayed for declaration of petitioner in default; RTC stated prior orders directing respondent to present evidence despite non-filing of responsive pleading "is, to the mind of the Court, in effect a declaration of default." Respondent’s counsel was directed to mark exhibits; counsel for respondent was found unprepared in the November 18, 2016 instance; petitioner’s counsel on June 15 was on special appearance.
- June 20, 2017: Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration or to Set Aside the Order in Transcript of Hearing of June 15, 2017; also filed motions to amend extradition petition and for updated procedures — all denied in RTC Resolution dated June 28, 2017 on ground petitioner had already been declared in default; RTC ruled no further pleadings by petitioner would be acted upon.
- July 27, 2017: RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the June 28, 2017 Resolution and denied humble motion for inhibition.
- July 4, 2017: Petitioner received signed copy of June 15, 2017 Order. August 8, 2017: Petitioner filed a verified Motion to Set Aside the Order of Default.
- November 22, 2017: RTC issued Resolution denying the motion to set aside order of default — held oral motion in open court was permissible, petitioner’s counsel did not object, prior August 13, 2013 written motion was a prior iteration, petitioner’s subsequent pleadings did not constitute an answer, and petitioner lacked meritorious defense.
- December 19, 2017: Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration (Re: November 22, 2017) with Motion to Dismiss and appended Answer ad cautelam.
- March 14, 2018: RTC denied the December 19, 2017 motion and refused to accept petitioner’s Answer ad cautelam.
- Respondent presented evidence ex parte; Formal Offer of Exhibits filed March 26, 2018 and admitted by RTC.
- April 19, 2018: RTC rendered Decision granting the petition for extradition.
- April 13, 2018: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the June 15 and June 28, 2017 Orders and the November 22, 2017 and March 14, 2018 Resolutions.
Proceedings and Rulings in the Court of Appeals
- CA consolidated petitioner’s certiorari petition with her appeal of the RTC decision (Resolutions dated August 20, 2018 and October 10, 2018).
- September 13, 2019 CA Decision:
- Dismissed the certiorari petition as moot and academic in view of petitioner’s appeal, citing Villamar‑Sandoval v. Cailipan.
- Denied petitioner’s appeal from the RTC decision granting extradition.
- Held that there are two stages in extradition proceedings (citing Government of Hongkong SAR v. Muñoz): a preliminary executive evaluation and an extradition hearing before a court.
- Concluded that because the petition was filed by the Secretary of Justice, required preliminary requisites (including duly‑authenticated documents) were satisfied.
- Affirmed that the RTC properly found admissible documentary evidence showing the requisition papers were in proper form and that the jurisdictional facts appeared on the face of the papers.
- Found respondent established the six elements appl