Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22079. May 27, 1966.]

ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONG TING, ET AL., Defendants, RICARDO RELUCIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Carlos & Garcia, for Defendant-Appellant.

Advincula, Alidio & Astraquillo for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. DEFAULT JUDGMENT; MOTION TO LIFT ORDER ON GROUND OF EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR. — The wife of defendant-appellant admits that the summons and complaint were served on her by the sheriff. The summons required her husband to file answer to the complaint within 15 days. It is not denied that she is a literate person,. hence, she must have understood the summons. What she should have done was to immediately communicate with her husband who was allegedly in the province then. There is no showing that her husband could not have been reached either by wire or letter on time for him to file his answer or to ask for an extension of the period prescribed therefor. Under the circumstances, her failure to inform her husband about the summons, and the latter’s failure to file the answer, constitute negligence which is not excusable under the law.

2. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF SHOWING DILIGENCE IS ON MOVANT. — In cases concerning motions to lift the order of default, the moving party has the burden of showing diligence, and unless it is shown affirmatively the court will not ordinarily exercise its discretion in his favor.


D E C I S I O N


REGALA, J.:


Ricardo Relucio appeals from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying him relief from a judgment by default.

It appears that in an action for the collection of sums of money brought by the plaintiff Asian Surety & Insurance Company against one Ong Ting and Ricardo Relucio, summons were served on the said defendants but that neither filed an answer, for which reason both were declared in default. Judgment was thus rendered on March 6, 1963, holding defendants jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the sum of P3,000 plus interest at 12 per cent a year from November 2, 1962; the sum of P9,000 plus 12 per cent annual interest from November 15, 1961 and the sum of P300 for attorney’s fees.

The first amount (P3,000) represents what the plaintiff paid to one Gloria Yap Ting Wah as surety for defendant Ong Ting. The second amount of P9,000 represents the amount paid to the Equitable Banking Corporation by the plaintiff as accommodation co-maker of a promissory note executed by defendants Ong Ting and Relucio and one Ong Chin. The court found that in consideration of the issuance of surety bonds, Defendants, together with Ong Chin, signed indemnity agreements, promising to indemnify the plaintiff for whatever amount it might be required to pay on its bonds.

On July 17, 1963, defendant Relucio filed a motion to lift the order of default and to set aside the judgment of the court on the ground that his failure to answer the complaint was due to "accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence" and that he had a valid, just and meritorious defense to make. The court denied the motion for lack of merit.

Only the defendant Relucio has appealed.

Appellant first asserts that it was a mistake for the lower court to dismiss for lack of merit his motion to lift the order of default and to set aside the judgment against him because his failure to answer the complaint, as explained in the lower court, was due to "accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence." In the affidavit of merit executed by Avelina Manapat in support of appellant’s motion, the following appears:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That Ricardo Relucio is one of the defendants in the above- entitled case (Civil Case No. 51483, entitled ‘Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Ong Ting Et. Al.’);

"2. That sometime in September 24, 1962 a sheriff of Caloocan City served to me the summons and complaint in the above-mentioned case which I first refused because Ricardo Relucio to whom said summons is addressed is in the province, but ultimately I accepted the said summons and copy of the complaint because the Sheriff insisted that he will just leave the summons to me if I will not accept and the same will be as good as served;

"3. That because said Ricardo Relucio is in the province and that I know that he is only a guarantor of Mr. Ong Ting, the other defendant, what I did is I delivered the said summons and complaint to Mr. Ong Ting in their house at Caloocan and when we talked, Mr. Ong Ting told me that I can leave with him the copy of the summons and the complaint and that he will settle it amicably with the Asian Surety and there is nothing to worry anymore about the case;

"4. That I did not know that Ricardo Relucio is required by law to make and file an answer to the complaint that I received;

"5. That believing in good faith that after I talked to Mr. Ong Ting the case is already settled and closed, I forgot all about it and because of which I failed to inform Ricardo Relucio about it when he arrived from the province;

"6. That sometime on June 13, 1962 another Sheriff came to the Universal Foundry Shop and served upon Ricardo Relucio a writ of execution and then levied the properties of the Universal Foundry Shop;

"7. That it was only during the service of the writ of execution that I remembered about the summons and the complaint that I received and delivered to Mr. Ong Ting in 1962;

"8. That it was only the first time that Ricardo Relucio found out that there was a case filed against him because I was not able to tell him about the summons and the complaint that I received on September 24, 1962."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above explanation deserves scant consideration. The plaintiff-appellee claims, and it is not disputed, that Avelina Manapat is the wife of Ricardo Relucio, the defendant guarantor. We see no reason for an intelligent person like Avelina Manapat to have left the summons and complaint intended for her husband with Ong Ting, when the latter as principal defendant in the case had also his own copy. It is not denied that Avelina Manapat is a literate person, a business woman who owns the Universal Foundry Shop. Indeed, contrary to what she states in paragraph 4 of her affidavit, she must have understood the summons. The summons states that Ricardo Relucio is "required to file with the office of the Clerk of Court of First Instance, Manila, Third Floor, Room 303, City Hall, Manila, within 15 days after the service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of such service, your answer to the complaint herewith of the plaintiff, a copy of which is served upon you; . . ." In paragraph 5 of her affidavit, it is stated that Avelina talked to Mr. Ong Ting about the case, which again shows that she really read the summons herself and understood what it means. As a responsible person, what Avelina should have done was to immediately communicate with her husband who was allegedly in the province then. There is no showing that her husband could not have been reached either by wire or letter on time for him to file his answer or to ask for an extension in the period prescribed therefor. Under the circumstances, Avelina Manapat’s failure to inform her husband about the summons, especially the alleged fact that she even forgot to tell it to him upon his arrival from the province, and the consequent failure of Relucio to file his answer constitute negligence which is not, however, excusable under the law.

In a similar case, Manzanilla v. Jaramilla, 84 Phil. 809-811, this Tribunal decided against the party in default stating:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"Defendant has no valid reason to complain against the denial of his motion of February 5, 1956, for the lifting of the order of default. The motion admits that the summons was received at his residence in Manila on January 10 of that year. He, therefore had until January 25 to file his answer or to ask for an additional period for that purpose. Granting that he was in the province of Isabela at that time, no showing is made that he could not have been communicated within time for him to do either of those things or that anything at all was done or attempted to be done by the one who accepted the summons on his behalf to apprise him thereof. Neither does the motion show that he has a meritorious defense. In short, the motion does not show that defendant’s failure to answer the complaint on time was legally excusable or that anything would be gained by having the order of default set aside. In the circumstances, we do not think the lower court abused its discretion in denying the motion. (Emphasis supplied)

The rule is established that in cases of this kind "the moving party has the burden of showing diligence, and unless it is shown affirmatively the court will not ordinarily exercise its discretion in his favor." The defendant in this case having utterly failed to so show his diligence, the lower court did not commit error in denying his motion.

The appellant also argues that he has a valid defense to make. In fact he executed an affidavit to this effect, but since it is clear from the above authorities that said appellant has lost his standing in court, it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the substantial aspect of the litigation.

Wherefore, the appealed order is hereby affirmed with costs against the Appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

J.P. Bengzon, J., took no part.




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-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.