REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Parañaque City, Branch 88

ARLYNE PARREÑO
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 2018-34

For: Damages
FATIMA SANTOS-PARREÑO
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

PLAINTIFF, by undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, respectfully states:

1. On June 8 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages of

even date against defendant entitled Arlyne S. Parreño vs. Fatima
Santos-Parreño (Civil Case No 2018-034).1 The said complaint was
raffled before this Honorable Court.

2. The records of this Honorable Court show that Defendant

was served with copy of the summons and of the complaint, together
with annexes on July 16, 2018.2 The Return states, in part, that:

“Hence, on 16 July 2018, the undersigned went again to

defendant, Fatima Santos-Parreño and she personally received
such court processes and signed the original copy of
Summons to acknowledge receipt thereof.”

3. Upon verification however, the records show that

defendant has failed to file her Answer within the reglementary

1
Attached and marked as Annex “A” is a copy of the Complaint dated June 8,
2018; hereafter, “complaint.”
2 Attached and marked as Annex “B” of this Motion is a copy of Officer’s Return

dated July 17, 2018; hereafter, “Return.”

period specified by the Rules of Court despite the service of the
summons and the complaint.

4. Rule 11, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant

shall file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days
after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by
the court.

5. Thus, defendant Fatima Santos-Parreño may be declared

in default pursuant to the Rules of Court for her deliberate failure to
file an Answer within the reglementary period.

6. Rule 9, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 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. Thereupon, the court shall proceed
to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of
evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

In Spouses Humberto and Carmencita Delos Santos vs.

7.
Hon. Emmanuel Carpio and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,3
the Supreme Court ruled that:

Clearly, there are three requirements which must be

complied with by the claiming party before the court may
declare the defending party in default, to wit: (1) the claiming
party must file a motion asking the court to declare the
defending party in default; (2) the defending party must be
notified of the motion to declare him in default; (3) the
claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed
to answer within the period provided by the Rule.

3
G.R No. 153696, September 11, 2006.

2
 8. Plaintiff filed the subject motion with notice to the
defendant in compliance with the abovecited ruling. Lastly and
evidently, 15 days from July 16, 2018 is July 31, 2018. Per the records
of this Honorable Court as of July 31, 2018 and even up to the date of
this motion, defendant is yet to file her Answer.

9. In Spouses Benedict and Sandra Manuel vs. Ramon Ong,4 the

Supreme Court ruled that:

A sheriff’s return, if complete on its face, must be

accorded the presumption of regularity and, hence, taken to
be an accurate and exhaustive recital of the circumstances
relating to the steps undertaken by a sheriff.

10. The Return and is clear and unequivocal that defendant

personally received the summons and the complaint on July 16, 2018.
Defendant had 15 days but refused to comply with the procedural
requirements of the law. In Lui Enterprises, Inc. vs. Zuellig Pharma
Corporation and Philippine Bank of Communications,5 the Supreme Court
ruled that:

Fifteen days is sufficient time for a defendant to answer

with good defenses against the plaintiff’s allegations in the
complaint. Thus, a defendant who fails to answer within 15
days from service of summons either presents no defenses
against the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint or was
prevented from filing his or her answer within the required
period due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence.

11. Lastly, in Momarco Import Company, Inc. vs. Felicidad

Villamena,6 the Supreme Court held that:

While the courts should avoid orders of default, and

should be, as a rule, liberal in setting aside orders of

4
G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014.
5 G.R. 193494, March 12, 2014.

6 G.R. No. 192477, July 27, 2016 citing Acance v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

159699, March 16, 2005; Montinola, Jr. v. Republic Planters Bank, No. L-66183,
May 4, 1988.

3
 default, they could not ignore the abuse of procedural rules by
litigants like the petitioner, who only had themselves to
blame.

12. As such and based on the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed that Defendant Fatima Santos-Parreño be declared in default
pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed
to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Arlyne S. Parreño respectfully prays

that Defendant Fatima Santos-Parreño be declared in default
pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed
to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.

Other reliefs, just or equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City for Parañaque City, August 16, 2018.

By:

LOWELL FREDRICK A. MADRILEÑO

Roll of Attorney’s No. 65899
PTR No. 6619831/1-06-18/Makati
IBP No. 021637/1-05-18/Rizal Chapter
MCLE Compliance No.7
lowellmadrileno@gmail.com
Princeton Residences, Brgy. Valencia,
Aurora Blvd., Quezon City
Tel. No.: 661-1401

7
Admitted to the Philippine Bar on June 21, 2016, hence, compliance with MCLE
Requirements is not yet due until the year 2019 pursuant to Rule 2, Section 2 of
Bar Matter No. 850.

4
NOTICE AND COPY FURNISHED:

Fatima Santos Parreño

#85 P. Oliveros St.,
Cupang, Antipolo City

The Honorable Clerk of Court

Metropolitan Trial Court
Parañaque City, Branch 88

Gentlemen:

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in

Default dated August 16, 2018 shall be submitted for the consideration and
approval of this Honorable Court on August 10, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.

Lowell Fredrick A. Madrileño