Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

109 Phil 1036:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15234. October 31, 1960.]

ANTONIO PIMENTEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ and MANUEL BAUTISTA, Defendants-Appellants.

Lucilo J. Aquitania for Appellants.

Cipriano L. Dumpit for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; FROM INFERIOR COURT TO COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; FILING OF ANSWER. — Under sec. 7 of Rule 40, a defendant is required to make an answer within the reglementary period from the date of the receipt of the notice that the case has already been docketed.

2. ID.; DEFAULT ORDER; PETITION FOR RELIEF. — Defendant’s allegation that their failure to file an answer to the complaint as reproduced in the Court of First Instance was due to their secretary’s omission to call their attention as to the time within which such answer should be filed, cannot constitute excusable negligence as would justify the lifting of the order of default and the reopening of the case. Having received the notice that the case had already been docketed, they were charged with the knowledge of the reglementary period within which to answer.

3. JUDGMENTS; PARTY IN DEFAULT LOSES STANDING IN COURT AND NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING. — A defendant in default loses his standing in court, and consequently, cannot appear therein to adduce evidence or be heard (Lim Toco v. Go Fay, 80 Phil., 166).

4. ID.; PETITION FOR RELIEF; ALLEGATION OF FACTS CONSTITUTING GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL DEFENSE NECESSARY. — Where the defendant’s petition for relief does not contain any allegation of facts constituting their good and substantial defense as required in Sec. 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, the court committed no error in denying the petition.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of La Union, denying appellants’ petition for relief under Rule 38.

The record shows that the plaintiff Antonio Pimentel, herein appellee, filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Bauang, La Union, an action for damages against Josefina Gomez and Manuel Bautista, herein appellants, for the unauthorized cutting of an acacia tree and a narra tree growing on the lot owned by plaintiff in common with his sisters and brothers.

Answering the complaint, the defendants denied the material allegations thereof and alleged that the trees belonged to them.

After trial, the justice of the peace court rendered decision in plaintiff’s favor. From this judgment, the defendants filed a notice of appeal, and the appeal having been perfected, the record of the case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance of the province. Upon receipt of said record and the docketing of the case under appeal, the clerk of the court on February 20, 1958 notified the parties thereof stating therein that "pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 8 and Sec. 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court the period for interposing a motion to dismiss and making an answer shall begin with the date of the receipt hereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 20, 1958, plaintiff through counsel filed an ex parte motion to declare defendants in default for failure to file an answer or a motion to dismiss within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court. Acting upon that motion, the lower court on the following day issued an order which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As prayed for by the attorney for the plaintiff in his ex-parte motion filed yesterday and it appearing that the summons was served on the defendants on February 24, 1958, said defendants for their failure to file their answer within the reglementary period are hereby declared in default."cralaw virtua1aw library

"It is so ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

On March 29, 1958, plaintiff through counsel filed a motion for execution, which was denied. Upon another motion filed by plaintiff, the lower court authorized the clerk of court or his deputy to receive the evidence in support of the complaint. Thereafter, or on October 29, 1958; the court below rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the total amount of P525.00 to the plaintiff for the value of the trees in question, for filing this action, attorney’s fees, payment of the surveyor’s services, and moral and exemplary damages suffered by the plaintiff, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint. The defendants shall further pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

"So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision having become final, the lower court on December 3, 1958, upon plaintiff’s motion, issued a writ of execution.

On January 3 of the following year, Defendants, through counsel, filed their petition for relief from judgment, alleging, among other things, that their non-appearance, a well as that of their counsel, at the hearing was due to their failure to receive the proper notices; that the only notice received by them was a notification that the case had been received by the Office of the Clerk of Court from the Justice of the Peace Court of Bauang, La Union, in connection with the appeal interposed by defendants; and that they have a good and substantial defense which they can prove if given a chance, as shown by the affidavits of their counsel attached as annexes "A" and "B", respectively, "as an Affidavit of Merit of this case." In their "supplemental petition for relief from judgment," defendants’ counsel also alleged that their failure to file an answer was due to the omission of their secretary to call their attention as to the time within which such answer should be filed. On January 23, 1959, the lower court issued the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After hearing and consideration of the motion for relief filed by Atty. Lucilo Aquitania and considering the same to be not meritorious as the declaration of default was issued due to the failure of the defendants’ counsel to file a written answer within the reglementary period after receipt of the notice sent by the office of the Clerk of Court, the Court orders that the motion for relief be, as it is hereby, denied.

"So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this order, defendants appealed directly to this Court.

The motion for relief from judgment, in our opinion, was properly overruled. The granting or denial of such motion is, as a general rule, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Counsel for defendants admit having received a notice, which they allegedly mistook as merely informing them of receipt of the record of the case from the inferior court. The notification, however, expressly contained the information that the case under appeal had been docketed and that "pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 8 and Sec. 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court the period for interposing a motion to dismiss and mailing an answer shall begin with the date of the receipt hereof." Under said section 7 of Rule 40, a defendant is required to make an answer within the reglementary period from the date of the receipt of the notice that the case has already been docketed. (Moran’s Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1957 ed., pp. 626-627.)

Counsel for defendants have also alleged that their failure to file an answer to the complaint was due to their secretary’s omission to call their attention as to the time within which such answer should be filed. Such omission, however, cannot constitute excusable neglect as would justify the lifting of the order of default and the reopening of the case. Having received the notice that the case had already been docketed, they were charged by law with the knowledge of the reglementary period within which to answer.

Moreover, nowhere in defendants’ petition for relief could there be found any allegation of facts constituting their good and substantial defense as required in Sec. 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Such requirement not having been complied with, the court below committed no error in denying the petition.

As to the claim that defendants were not notified of the proceedings and hence denied their day in court, suffice it to say that a defendant in default loses his standing in court, and consequently cannot appear therein to adduce evidence or be heard. He is, for that reason, not entitled to notice, because it would be useless and of no purpose to do so, since he cannot appeal and be heard in the suit in any way. (Lim Toco v. Go Fay, 80 Phil., 166.)

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.




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






October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152