Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > May 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10454 May 25, 1959 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

105 Phil 791:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10454. May 25, 1959.]

PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. HON. HIGINIO MACADAEG, SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC., THE SHERIFF OF DAVAO and THE REGISTER OF DEEDSE OF DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

Manuel Tomacruz & Associates for Petitioner.

Alejo Mabanag for respondent Company.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; DEFAULT ORDER; WHEN MAY BE SET ASIDE. — An order of default may be set aside at any time before final judgment, provided the petition for vacating it is made within six months after entry of the order.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


For having lifted the order of default he had previously issued against the defendant in Civil Case No. 26213 of the Manila Court of First Instance, the respondent judge is impleaded together with such defendant and others in this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

In said case, Predential Bank & Trust Co., sued Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. to collect P275,624.62 on a letter of credit, bank draft and trust receipts. Upon its request, the Sheriff of Davao levied preliminary attachment on two parcels of land in Davao belonging to defendant, and caused its annotation in the Office of the Register of Deeds. Summons having been duly served, defendant failed to answer on time. Consequently, upon Prudential Bank’s petition, the Court defaulted Saura Import & Export Co., by order of August 23, 1955.

On November 22, 1955, alleging mistake, accident or excusable negligence, Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. filed a petition to set aside the entry of default. Prudential Bank opposed the petition calling attention to its alleged untimeliness, because 80 days had already elapsed from the time Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. first learned of the order of default, and denying the truth of such accident, mistake or excusable negligence, etc., etc.

On December 20, 1055, the respondent Judge Higinio Macadaeg, issued his order cancelling the previous order of default; furthermore, three days later, at the request of Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. over the Bank’s opposition. His Honor decreed the dissolution of the preliminary attachment upon the filing of a suitable counterbond. (This explains the inclusion as respondents of the Davao Sheriff and Register of Deeds: the Bank request for mandamus to reinstate the attachment.)

After its motion to reconsider the orders cancelling the default and the attachment had failed, the Bank instituted this proceeding to obtain the annulment of both orders plus other allied relief.

At the outset, it may be stated that certain incidents have not been mentioned, they being emmaterial to the issues here. It may also be stated that, as petitioner’s objection to the dissolution rests on the default order which, it avers, should remain undisturbed, this decision will address itself solely to the quetions pertinent to the quashing of the default.

Elementary, of course, is the principle that an order denying plaintiff’s petition to declare defendant in default is interlocutory; no appeal lies thereform. And we have ruled that as no appeal lies, neither will a certiorari petition be entertained to circumvent the principle. 1

Now, the circumstances before us present practically the same situation. In effect, the respondent judge refused to declare defendant in default; yet Prudential Bank bring the matter here for review.

Nevertheless, petitioner alleges lack of jurisdiction, the petition to set aside having been filed more than sixty days after Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. had come to know the entry of default. "From September 3, 1955" argues petitioner, "the day respondent Saura positively and undeniably learned of the order of default, to November 22, 1955, the day respondent Saura filed its petition to set aside the order of default on the ground of accident, mistake or excusable negligence, there had elapsed a total of 80 days, or 20 days more than the 60-days period allowed by sec. 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court."

This contention respondent’s attorney denies, because in his view, the order of default was merely interlocutory and was subject to the control of the court until final judgment. He quotes from Larrobis v. Wislisenus, 2 the power of the courts, in accordance with immemorial usage, to set aside an interlocutory order of default, 3 such order being under the control of the court until the final decision of the case, "and may be modified or rescinded on sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment."

At this juncture, it may be noted that after the entry of deafault, plaintiff Bank presented its evidence; but before decision or judgment or default could be entered, defendant asked for rescision of the entry of default; and then the Judge issued the order now in question. The default entry was, therefore, cancelled before rendition of final judgment.

In several decisions we said one who has defaulted may apply for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. (Lim Toco v. Go Pay, 80 Phil., 166; Gequillana v. Buenaventura, 48 Off. Gaz., 63.) This, at first glance, seems to require presentation of the petition within the time limits prescribed therein, i.e., within 60 days after knowing the default order and within six months after the entry of such order.

In Gana v. Abaya, 52 Off. Gaz., 231, we annulled on certiorari the order of the Manila court of first instance cancelling a decree of default, because the petition for relief had been filed more than six months after the issuance of such decree. We regarded the period fixed in Rule 38 to be jurisdictional. And in Isaac v. Mendoza, L-2820, June 2, 1951, applying the ruling in Lim Toco v. Go Pay, supra, we expressed the view that if the petition for relief from a default order is not presented within the six-month period fixed in Rule 38, the court of first instance loses the power to grant it.

However, in other decisions, the opinion was expressed that a default order being interlocutory, is subject to the control of the court and may be modified or rescinde at any time before final judgment. 4

From these decisions the resultant principle appears to be that an order of default may be set aside at any time before final judgment, provided the petition for vacating it is made wihtin six months after entry of the order.

In applying such resultant principle, we find in this litigation that whereas the default entry occured on August 23, 1955, on November 22, 1955, — within six months — defendant petitioned for relief. The court had jurisdiction to lift the order of default.

Granted the court’s jurisdiction to vacate, all issues referring to the reason or reasons for vacating do not nee elucidation at this time. 5 To do so would convert certiorari proceedings into a means of evading the rule against appeals from interlocutory orders 6 with the attending evils which the prohibition seeks to avoid. Specifically, this court has declared itself against appeals from orders vacating default judgments. (Smith v. Mijares, 23 Phil., 619.)

Wherefore, there being no excess of jurisdiction, action favorable to petitioner must be declined.

As to alleged insufficiency of the counterbond, the matter may be submitted to the court below for consideration.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J., concurs in the result.

Endnotes:



1. Cf Mendoza v. Montesa, 90 Phil., 63.

2. 42 Phil., 401, 403.

3. As distinguished from the final judgment to be rendered after hearing plaintiff’s evidence.

4. Larrobis v. Wislizenus, supra; Mandian v. Leong, 103 Phil., 1431.

5. If after trial, defendant is absolved and plaintiff appeals, the matter may then be discussed.

6. Cf. Samia, v. medina, 56 Phil., 613; Mendoza v. Montesa, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9553 May 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ERNEST JOLLIFFE

    105 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-2331 May 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMPOS

    105 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-11474 May 13, 1959 - CANDIDO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. CRISPIN PARAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-9636 May 15, 1959 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ILONE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-11334 May 15, 1959 - SALVADOR CRUZ v. TITA TIRONA MALABAYASBAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-10853 May 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR I. PONELAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-9873 May 20, 1959 - UY HOO & CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    105 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-12044 May 20, 1959 - BRIGIDO JUGUETA, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    105 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-12057 May 20, 1959 - FRANCISCO MARTIR v. PEDRO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    105 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-12696 May 20, 1959 - PERFECTO DIZON, ET AL. v. FERMIN LEAL

    105 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-9102 May 22, 1959 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

    105 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-12164 May 22, 1959 - BENITO LIWANAG, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    105 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-12334 May 22, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. INC. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-12439 May 22, 1959 - FELICIANO MARTIN v. PRUDENCIO MARTIN, ET AL.

    105 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-12666 May 22, 1959 - JUAN CLARIDAD v. ISABEL NOVELLA

    105 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-13141 May 22, 1959 - VICENTA PANTALEON v. HONORATO ASUNCION

    105 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-10732 May 23, 1959 - VICTORIANO GAMIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-11316 May 23, 1959 - ADELAIDA P. IZON v. CREDIT UNION KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR

    105 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-12492 May 23, 1959 - ANDRES DE LA CERNA v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR.

    105 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-12534 May 23, 1959 - ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 777

  • G.R. Nos. L-9616 & L-11783 May 25, 1959 - HOA HIN CO., INC. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    105 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-10454 May 25, 1959 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    105 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-11415 May 25, 1959 - MANUEL BUASON, ET AL. v. MARIANO PANUYAS

    105 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-11743 May 25, 1959 - ASUNCION LIM, ET AL. v. ROQUE VELASCO

    105 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-11506 May 26, 1959 - SIXTO CASTRO, ET AL. v. JUSTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-12737 May 26, 1959 - LORENZO MANUEL v. REMEDIOS TIONG VDA. DE NAOE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-12794 May 26, 1959 - ANASTACIO MORELOS v. GO CHIN LING, ET AL.

    105 Phil 814

  • G.R. No. L-10956 May 27, 1959 - CHEE NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. L-11362 May 27, 1959 - IN RE: SIMEON LIM HAM YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-11554 May 27, 1959 - SEVERINO DAGDAG v. DELFIN FLORES

    105 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-11597 May 27, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO GARCIA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-12759 May 27, 1959 - TOMAS FERNANDO v. LUIS ABALOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14143 May 27, 1959 - MARIANO B. DELGADO v. ANGEL B. TIU, ET AL.

    105 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-7839 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DELIMIOS

    105 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-10781 May 29, 1959 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. MAXIMO J. SAVELLANO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 856

  • G.R. Nos. L-10829-30 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. HENDERSON III, ET AL.

    105 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11563 May 29, 1959 - ROSITA H. PORCUNA v. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    105 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-11860 May 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. LT. COL. LEOPOLDO RELUNIA

    105 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11990 May 29, 1959 - JOSE MOVIDO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    105 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. L-12075 May 29, 1959 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC) v. NARIC WORKERS UNION

    105 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-12183 May 29, 1959 - SIXTO CELESTINO v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    105 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-12184 May 29, 1959 - CHAN KIAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-12299 May 29, 1959 - FRANCISCO M. ORTEGA v. SAULOG TRANSIT

    105 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12331 May 29, 1959 - LAURO B. ISIDRO v. RAYMUNDO OCAMPO

    105 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12394 May 29, 1959 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU)

    105 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12399 May 29, 1959 - RUFINO ADAN, ET AL. v. NICASIA PANTALLA

    105 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12407 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO T. KOH, ET AL.

    105 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-12465 May 29, 1959 - YU PANG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 930

  • G.R. Nos. L-12502 & L-12512 May 29, 1959 - WALKER RUBBER CORPORATION v. NEDERLANDSCH INDISCHE & HANDELSBANK, ET AL.

    105 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-12581 May 29, 1959 - MAXIMO GALVEZ v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    105 Phil 944

  • G.R. Nos. L-12634 & L-12720 May 29, 1959 - JOSE G. TAMAYO v. INOCENCIO AQUINO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-12693 May 29, 1959 - FLORENTINA J. TECHICO v. AMALIA SERRANO

    105 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-12757 May 29, 1959 - MUNICIPALITY OF COTABATO, ET AL. v. ROMAN R. SANTOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-14723 May 29, 1959 - NORBERTO LUMPAY. VALENTIN SUPERABLE v. SEGUNDO MOSCOSO

    105 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. 12157 May 30, 1959 - MARIANO MARQUEZ LIM v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 974