Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Salas v. Sablas, G.R. No. 144568, July 3, 2007

    Uploaded by

    The Money FAQs
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to declare the defendants in default after they filed their answer outside the required period. The Court found that three requirements must be met before a default can be declared: 1) a motion by the claiming party, 2) notice to the defending party, and 3) proof that the defending party failed to answer on time. Since no motion for default was filed before the defendants filed their answer, the trial court properly admitted the late answer and denied the subsequent motion for default. The policy is to decide cases on the merits when possible rather than by default. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salas v. Sablas, G.R. No. 144568, July 3, 2007

    Uploaded by

    The Money FAQs
    41 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to declare the defendants in default after they filed their answer outside the required period. The Court found that three requirements must be met before a default can be declared: 1) a motion by the claiming party, 2) notice to the defending party, and 3) proof that the defending party failed to answer on time. Since no motion for default was filed before the defendants filed their answer, the trial court properly admitted the late answer and denied the subsequent motion for default. The policy is to decide cases on the merits when possible rather than by default. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to declare the defendants in default after they filed their answer outside the required period. The Court found that three requirements must be met before a default can be declared: 1) a motion by the claiming party, 2) notice to the defending party, and 3) proof that the defending party failed to answer on time. Since no motion for default was filed before the defendants filed their answer, the trial court properly admitted the late answer and denied the subsequent motion for default. The policy is to decide cases on the merits when possible rather than by default. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views3 pages

    Salas v. Sablas, G.R. No. 144568, July 3, 2007

    Uploaded by

    The Money FAQs
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to declare the defendants in default after they filed their answer outside the required period. The Court found that three requirements must be met before a default can be declared: 1) a motion by the claiming party, 2) notice to the defending party, and 3) proof that the defending party failed to answer on time. Since no motion for default was filed before the defendants filed their answer, the trial court properly admitted the late answer and denied the subsequent motion for default. The policy is to decide cases on the merits when possible rather than by default. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Sablas vs.

    Sablas
    G.R. No. 144568
    July 3, 2007

    The court cannot declare a defending party in default without a motion from the other
    party. Where there is no declaration of default, answer may be admitted even if filed out
    of time. Where answer has been filed, there can be no declaration of default anymore.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner spouses were served with summons and a copy of the complaint on October
    6, 1999. On October 21, 1999, they filed a motion for extension of time requesting an
    additional period of 15 days, or until November 5, 1999, to file their answer. However,
    they were able to file it only on November 8, 1999. While the trial court observed that
    the answer was filed out of time, it admitted the pleading because no motion to declare
    petitioner spouses in default was filed.

    The following day, respondents filed a motion to declare petitioner spouses in default
    but such was denied by the trial court. Respondents moved for reconsideration but it
    was also denied. Thereafter, they challenged the order in the Court of Appeals in a
    petition for certiorari alleging that the admission of the answer by the trial court was
    contrary to the rules of procedure and constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting
    to lack of jurisdiction.

    In a decision dated July 17, 2000, the CA ruled that the trial court committed grave
    abuse of discretion because, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, the
    trial court had no recourse but to declare petitioner spouses in default when they failed
    to file their answer on or before November 5, 1999. Thus, the CA granted the petition,
    vacated the December 6, 1999 order and remanded the case to the trial court for
    reception of plaintiffs’ evidence.

    Aggrieved, petitioner spouses (defendants in the trial court) now assail the July 17,
    2000 decision of the Court of Appeals in this petition for review on certiorari.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent’s
    motion to declare petitioners in default after the latter filed their answer outside the
    reglementary period?
    RULING:

    NO. An order of default can be made only upon motion of the claiming party. It can be
    properly issued against the defending party who failed to file the answer within the
    prescribed period only if the claiming party files a motion to that effect with notice to the
    defending party.

    Three requirements must be complied with before the court can declare the defending
    party in default: (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 and (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has
    failed to answer within the period provided by the Rules of Court. The rule on default
    requires the filing of a motion and notice of such motion to the defending party. It is not
    enough that the defendant fails to answer the complaint within the reglementary period.
    The trial court cannot motu proprio declare a defendant in default as the rules leave it
    up to the claiming party to protect his or its interests. The trial court should not under
    any circumstances act as counsel of the claiming party.

    It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file his
    answer and to be heard on the merits even after the reglementary period for filing the
    answer expires. The Rules of Court provides for discretion on the part of the trial court
    not only to extend the time for filing an answer but also to allow an answer to be filed
    after the reglementary period. Thus, the appellate court erred when it ruled that the trial
    court had no recourse but to declare petitioner spouses in default when they failed to file
    their answer on or before November 5, 1999.

    The rule is that the defendant’s answer should be admitted where it is filed before a
    declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. Where the answer is
    filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is declared in default and
    there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be
    admitted. Therefore, the trial court correctly admitted the answer of petitioner spouses
    even if it was filed out of time because, at the time of its filing, they were not yet
    declared in default nor was a motion to declare them in default ever filed. Neither was
    there a showing that petitioner spouses intended to delay the case.

    Since the trial court already admitted the answer, it was correct in denying the
    subsequent motion of respondents to declare petitioner spouses in default.

    The policy of the law is to have every litigant’s case tried on the merits as much as
    possible. Hence, judgments by default are frowned upon. A case is best decided when
    all contending parties are able to ventilate their respective claims and present their
    arguments and adduces evidence in support thereof. The parties are thus given the
    chance to be heard fully and the demands of due process are subserved. Moreover, it is
    only amidst such an atmosphere that accurate factual findings and correct legal
    conclusions can be reached by the courts.

    Case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

    You might also like