Case Summary (G.R. No. 144568)
Procedural History
Respondents filed a complaint for judicial partition, inventory and accounting on October 1, 1999. Petitioners were served October 6, 1999, and sought an extension on October 21, 1999 to file an answer until November 5, 1999, but they filed the answer on November 8, 1999. The trial court noted the tardiness but admitted the answer because no motion to declare petitioners in default had been filed by respondents. Respondents then filed a motion to declare petitioners in default (filed November 9, 1999), which the trial court denied by order dated December 6, 1999; a motion for reconsideration by respondents was also denied. The Court of Appeals granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting the late answer and ordering the case remanded for reception of plaintiffs’ evidence. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded the trial court had no recourse but to declare petitioners in default under Section 3, Rule 9, for filing an answer after the extended deadline, and whether the trial court’s admission of the late answer constituted grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.
Controlling Rule and Elements for Declaration of Default
Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the record, provides that if a defending party fails to answer within the time allowed, “the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default.” The decision distilled three prerequisites for a valid declaration of default: (1) the claiming party must file a motion specifically asking for declaration of default; (2) the defending party must be notified of that motion; and (3) the claiming party must prove the defending party failed to answer within the prescribed period. The rule is thus not automatic; it requires affirmative action by the claiming party and notice to the defending party.
Trial Court Discretion and the Effect of an Unfiled Motion for Default
The Supreme Court concluded that, because the Rules require a motion and notice before a declaration of default can be entered, the trial court may not declare a defendant in default motu proprio. When no motion to declare default has been filed, there is no procedural basis to enter a default order. Consequently, where an answer is filed before any declaration of default and before any valid motion for default has been granted, the trial court has discretion to admit the answer even if it is tardy. The Court emphasized that the Rules also expressly permit the court, “upon like terms,” to extend time to plead and “allow an answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules” (Section 11, Rule 11), supporting the trial court’s discretion to accept a belated answer in appropriate circumstances.
Prejudice, Intent to Delay, and Judicial Policy Favoring Merits
The decision reiterated the established policy that cases should be decided on their merits whenever practicable and that judgments by default are disfavored. Where a late answer is filed before any declaration of default and there is no showing that the defendant intends to delay the proceedings or that the plaintiff is prejudiced, the late filing should be admitted. The Court cited prior decisions holding that it is error to declare default after an answer has been filed and that it is grave abuse to declare default despite an already-filed answer.
Application to the Present Case
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the trial court acted within i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 144568)
Title, Citation and Participating Justices
- Case reported at 553 Phil. 271, First Division, G.R. No. 144568, decided July 03, 2007.
- Decision penned by Justice Corona, J.
- Concurrence by Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), and Justices Azcuna and Garcia, JJ.
- Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez was on leave.
- The Court of Appeals decision under review was authored by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad-Santos, Jr. (retired) and Romeo A. Brawner (retired) concurring in the Third Division; that CA case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 57397 (decision dated July 17, 2000).
- The petition to the Supreme Court was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Nature of the Case and Reliefs Sought in the Trial Court
- The case originated as a complaint for judicial partition, inventory and accounting filed by respondents Esterlita S. Sablas and Rodulfo S. Sablas against petitioner spouses Pascual Lumanas and Guillerma S. Sablas.
- The complaint was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Baybay, Leyte, Branch 14, presided by Judge Cristina T. Pontejos, and docketed as Civil Case No. B-1999-10-24.
- Reliefs in the trial court included partition of property and related inventory and accounting.
Service, Pleadings and Early Procedural Events
- Petitioners (defendants in the trial court) were served with summons and a copy of the complaint on October 6, 1999.
- Petitioners filed a motion for extension of time on October 21, 1999, requesting an additional 15 days—until November 5, 1999—to file their answer.
- Petitioners actually filed their answer on November 8, 1999—three days after the requested extension period expired.
- The trial court observed that the answer was filed out of time but admitted the pleading because respondents had not filed a motion to declare petitioners in default.
- The answer had been served on respondents’ counsel by registered mail; respondents alleged they were unaware that petitioners already answered the complaint.
- The trial court’s order admitting the late answer is dated November 9, 1999 (Order dated November 9, 1999; see Rollo, p. 52).
Respondents’ Motion for Declaration of Default and Trial Court Rulings
- On November 9, 1999, respondents filed a motion to declare petitioners in default.
- The trial court denied respondents’ motion in an order dated December 6, 1999 (Rollo, p. 24).
- Respondents moved for reconsideration of that denial; the motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution dated January 11, 2000 (Rollo, pp. 25-26).
Petition to the Court of Appeals
- Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 57397, challenging the trial court’s December 6, 1999 order.
- The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated July 17, 2000, ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting the late answer.
- The appellate court’s ruling rested largely on its interpretation of Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, concluding the trial court had no recourse but to declare petitioners in default when they failed to file their answer on or before November 5, 1999.
- The Court of Appeals granted the petition, vacated the trial court’s December 6, 1999 order, and remanded the case to the trial court for reception of plaintiffs’ (respondents’) evidence.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court was obliged to declare petitioners in default when they failed to file their answer within the extension period, and whether admission of the late answer constituted grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the trial court.
Supreme Court’s Holding (Summary)
- The petition filed by petitioner spouses is GRANTED.
- The July 17, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57397 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
- The December 6, 1999 order of the Regional Trial Court of Baybay, Leyte, Branch 14 (denying respondents’ motion to declare petitioners in default) is REINSTATED.
- The case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
Statutory Provision Quoted and Emphasized
- Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court was quoted in full as the controlling statutory provision on declaration of default:
- "SEC. 3. Default: Declaration of. - If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. x x x." (emphasis supplied in the source)
Elements Required for a Valid Declaration of Default (Court’s Statement of the Rule)
- The Supreme Court distilled three essential requirements that must be complied with before a court may declare a de