Pre-Trial – Failure to Appear
If the defendant discovered the default after the
Lesaca v. CA
Facts:
Lesaca filed a complaint for ejectment against Ravelo in the
MeTC due to the expiration of the latter’s month-to-month
lease contract. Only Lesaca appeared on the preliminary
conference and the MeTC declared Ravelo “in default” and
rendered a decision ordering Ravelo to vacate the premises.
Held:
MeTC erred. It should have issued a “preliminary conference
order” defining the issues in the case. Thereafter the parties
should have submitted their affidavits and other evidence.
Since Ravelo did file an answer to the complaint, MeTC may
not declare him in default despite his absence at the pre-trial
conference because a motion to declare Ravelo in default is a
prohibited pleading.
Effect
Dulos v. CA
Facts:
Spouses Nocom sued Spouses Dulos for forcible entry in the
MeTC. Neither Spouses Dulos nor their counsel appeared on
the pre-trial conference.
Rectra appeared on the pre-trial and manifested that she was
duly authorized by virtue of a SPA to represent her brother
Dulos who was confined in the hospital for having undergone
a femur operation.
Spouses Dulos were nonetheless declared in default.
Judgment was rendered in favor of Spouses Nocom. Instead
of taking an appeal, Spouses Dulos filed for certiorari and
injunction with the RTC.
Held:
RTC did not err in denying the application for injunction. First,
a case may be dismissed for failure of a party to appear at the
pre-trial conference. Rectra did appear at the pre-trial but did
not present her SPA to represent Dulos or a med certificate of
his operation. Secondly, the denial was justified because
Spouses Dulos did not employ the proper remedy.
Defendants should have filed an appeal.
The remedies available to a defendant declared in default
are:
1. At any time after discovery thereof and before
judgment, filing a motion under oath to set aside the
order of default on the ground that the failure to
answer or appear was due to fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a
meritorious defense.
2. If judgment has already been rendered when the
defendant discovered the default but before it has
become final and executory, by filing a petition for
new trial.
3.
judgment has become final and executory, by filing a
petition for relief.
4. Appeal from the judgment.
Extent of Relief to be Awarded
Mangelen v. CA
Facts:
Mangelen filed an action for recovery against Habaluyas
Enterprises for an amount the latter bound itself to pay by
virtue of a Compromise Agreement.
When Habaluyas Enterprises did not file any answer to the
complaint, Mangelen filed a motion to declare Habaluyas
Enterprises in default and to be allowed to present evidence
ex-parte, which the trial court granted. Habaluyas filed a
motion to set aside order of default on ground that they had
filed with the IAC a petition for certiorari raising the issues of
improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, and litis pendencia.
Held:
TC was correct in declaring Habaluyas in default and
authorizing Mangelen to present evidence ex-parte. If the
reason for their failure to answer was because they wanted
to file a petition for certiorari with the IAC, they should have
acted immediately. It appears therefore that it was part of a
well planned strategy to gain more time to delay the case.
Procedure after Order of Default
Five Star Bus v. CA
Facts:
Spouses Santos filed for breach of contract of carriage and
damages against Five Star Bus Co. for the death of their son
Joey. TC set the pre-trial but Five Star and their counsel failed
to appear. TC declared them in default and scheduled the
reception of their evidence.
Held:
After declaring a party as in default or non-suited, the TC is
not duty bound to receive evidence ex-parte on the very
same day it issued the default or non-suit order. The hearing
that petitioners failed to attend was a pre-trial; pre-trial and
trial on the merits are usually held on separate days to enable
the parties to prepare for trial.
Monserrate v. CA
(no issue on default )
Facts:
Upon a verified petition for adoption by Ervin Pompa, RTC
declared him as the son of Suiza. Monserrate filed for the
nullification of the order of adoption. CA dismissed the case.
Held:
There is no law or rule requiring notice to the Solicitor
General as a jurisdictional prerequisite for the valid exercise
of the court’s jurisdiction in an adoption case.

Remedies – Liberality Modes – Appeal

Gerales v. CA MERALCO v. La Campana

Facts:
The case arose out of a vehicular accident wherein Gerales,
the offended party filed a case for damages in the RTC against
car owner Fideldia and driver Pimentel.
Before the summons were served, the claims of Gerales were
amicably settled and she signed a Release of Claim. When
Fideldia and Pimentel were served with summons, Pimentel
wrote the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that the parties
have mutually settled the case.
RTC nevertheless declared Fideldia and Pimentel in default
and set the case for presentation of Gerales’ evidence ex
parte.
Held:
RTC ought to have considered the letter of Pimentel as a
responsive pleading even if it lacks the formalities required by
law. The courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of
default for default judgment is frowned upon, and unless it
clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for
delay, it is best that trial courts give both parties every chance
to fight their case fairly and in the open, without resort to
technicality.
Modes – Appeal
Tan v. CA
Facts:
DPG filed with the MeTC an ejectment suit for non-payment
of rentals against Vermont Packaging that is being managed
by Tan.
During pendency of said suit, Tan filed for cancellation or
annulment of the TCT issued in the name of DPG.
As DPG repeatedly failed to file answer, Tan filed a motion to
declare DPG in default.
Trial Court granted the motion and rendered a judgment in
favor of Tan.
When DPG receive a copy of the decision, its counsel filed a
motion for new trial and to admit answer with counterclaim.
Facts:
La Campana filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money
with preliminary injunction against Meralco after it was
served a notice of disconnection for alleged nonpayment of
bills.
Summons were duly served on Meralco and the latter filed
for a motion for extension.
The motion however was not acted upon as it did not contain
a notice of hearing.
Since Meralco failed to file an answer to the complaint within
the reglementary period, La Campana filed an Ex-Parte
Motion to Declare Defendants in Default.
RTC judge granted motion and rendered judgment in favor of
La Campana.
Meralco filed a Motion to set aside Judgment by Default
and/or for New Trial on the ground that it filed an answer to
the complaint and that the judgment by default was obtained
by fraud.
Held:
RTC judge did not err. Meralco failed to indicate in its “motion
for extension of time to file an answer” a notice of place and
date of hearing, an omission for which it could offer no
explanation. It could not presume that the court will grant its
motion for extension. Thus when it filed its answer with
counterclaim 14 days after the expiration of the period within
which to file an answer, Meralco was already in default and
naturally it had to bear all the legal consequences of being in
default.

Held:
A remedy against a judgment by default is a motion for new
trial which should be filed within the period for perfecting an
appeal, and that the timely filing thereof interrupts the 15
day reglementary period. No dispute that a motion for new
trial was filed on behalf of DPG within the 15 day appeal
period.