Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > July 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20086 July 10, 1967 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20086. July 10, 1967.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, in its capacity as judicial administrator of the intestate estate of the late Macauyag (Moro), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Senen S. Caniza for defendant and Appellant.

Ramon B. de los Reyes for plaintiff and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER ON TIME; ORDER BY DEFAULT. — Where by express court order appellant was not in default when he filed his answer, but it turned out that the ground for such order was erroneous as pointed out in a granted motion for reconsideration of which he was not notified, although, technically, his position appears to be well founded as he had the right to be heard on the matter, such hearing would not alter the fact, which appellant does not dispute, that his answer was really filed late. The order by default was, therefore, well grounded.

2. ID; ID; ID; RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. — Where an order denying relief from judgment by default is appealed, it is pertinent to inquire whether or not appellant has a meritorious defense shown by affidavit of merit which the Rules require; and where prescription is the only defense of relevance in the answer wherein he admits having received written extra judicial demand which interrupted the running of the period of prescription under Art. 1155 of the Civil Code, the denial of the relief sought for must be upheld.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


The Court of First Instance of Manila denied defendant’s petition for relief from judgment in Civil Case No. 37757. The matter is before Us on appeal from the order of denial.

The proceedings which took place below are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

September 13, 1958 — Plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery of P10,000.00 from defendant, plus interest, on the strength of a promissory note signed by the latter and dated February 16, 1948.

October 1, 1958 — Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the action had prescribed. Plaintiff opposed, and the Court denied the motion by order dated October 14, 1958.

October 22, 1958 — Plaintiff moved to have defendant declared in default and to set the case for reception of plaintiff’s evidence.

November 7, 1958 — Defendant moved ex-parte for extension of time within which to file his answer to the complaint.

November 8, 1958 — The Court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for default, "there being no showing that defendant has received a copy of the order of this Court denying the motion to dismiss."cralaw virtua1aw library

November 12, 1958 — Defendant filed an answer.

November 17, 1958 — Plaintiff filed an ex-parte motion for reconsideration, praying that the order of November 8 be set aside and another on be issued declaring defendant in default.

November 19, 1958 — The Court issued the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Finding the reasons adduced by Attorney Ramon de los Reyes to be well-taken, the Order of this Court of November 8, 1958 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.

The defendant Segundo Fernandez is declared in default, it appearing that he had filed an extension of time to file his answer on November 7, 1958 which is 5 days after the expiration of the reglementary period required by law and his answer filed on November 12, 1958."cralaw virtua1aw library

January 22, 1959 — The court heard the case for plaintiff ex- parte and on the same date decided it, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby renders judgment condemning the herein defendant to pay the sum of P10,000.00, value of the promissory note, plus interest at 6% per annum from the filing of this complaint and 10% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

April 7, 1959 — Defendant filed with the trial court a verified petition for relief from judgment, which plaintiff opposed. The petition was denied on April 11, 1959.

Defendant seasonably appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to Us on the ground that the issues involved are purely legal.

Appellant’s main point is that when appellee filed its motion for reconsideration ex-parte on November 17, 1958, appellant was not in default and hence was entitled to notice of said motion so as to be able to oppose it and be heard on his opposition. Rule 26, Section 6 (of the old Rules) provided that "no motion shall be acted upon by the Court, without proof of service of the notice thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellee answers this argument by emphasizing the fact that appellant was actually in default by reason of his failure to file his answer within the reglementary period. The following circumstances are cited: Summons was served on appellant on September 20, 1958. He filed his motion to dismiss eleven (11) days later or on October 1, 1958. Only four (4) days then remained of the 15-day period within which to answer. The four days started to run again on October 29, 1958, when appellant received copy of the order denying his motion to dismiss, and expired on November 2, 1958. Therefore, appellee submits, appellant was already in default by five (5) days when he filed, on November 7, 1958, a motion for extension of time within which to answer and when he did file his answer on November 12. Such being the case, appellee continues, appellant was not entitled to notice of the motion for reconsideration, for under Rule 27, Section 9 (old Rules of Court) "no service of papers shall be necessary on a party in default except when he files a motion to set aside the order of default, in which event he is entitled to notice of all further proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

Technically appellant’s position appears well-founded. As of November 12, 1958, when appellee filed its motion for reconsideration, the effective order which defined the standing of appellant was that of November 8 denying appellee’s motion to declare appellant in default. In other words, by express court order appellant was not in default when he filed his answer to the complaint on November 12, 1958. As a matter of fact, however, the ground on which that order was based was erroneous, and it was to show such error that appellee filed his motion for reconsideration on November 17, 1958. To be sure, appellant had a right to be heard on the matter, but such hearing would not alter the fact, which appellant does not now dispute, that his answer was really filed late.

In any event, this being an appeal from an order denying relief from judgment, it is pertinent to inquire whether or not appellant has a meritorious defense. This is the reason why the Rules require that a petition for such relief be accompanied by an affidavit of merits. We have examined appellant’s answer to the complaint and found that the only defense alleged therein which has any relevance is that of prescription; but then the answer itself shows that the defense is untenable, for it admits that appellant received from appellee written demands for payment before the prescriptive period of ten years expired, and according to Article 1155 of the Civil Code prescription of actions is interrupted when there is a written extra-judicial demand by the creditor. We therefore see no point in granting the reliefs sought by Appellant.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Reyes, J .B.L., Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., did not take 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






July-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23258 July 1, 1967 - ROBERTO R. MONROY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 July 10, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26237 July 10, 1967 - NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. ISTHMIAN LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24704 July 10, 1967 - AUYONG HIAN v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19535 July 10, 1967 - PIO MINDANAO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20086 July 10, 1967 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SEGUNDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24520 July 11, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 13, 1967 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25859 July 13, 1967 - FRANCISCO LOPEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24340-44 July 18, 1967 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21054 July 18, 1967 - IN RE: MIGUEL CHUN ENG GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19600 July 19, 1967 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23176 & L-23177 July 20, 1967 - PABLO R. TONGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23229 July 20, 1967 - ANDRES P. BARING v. CESAR M. CABAHUG

  • G.R. No. L-25662 July 21, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21495 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO HALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22174 July 21, 1967 - ESPERANZA P. DE HARDEN v. FRED M. HARDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22356 July 21, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO B. PATANAO

  • G.R. No. L-23956 July 21, 1967 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. NICOLAS LUTERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23982 July 21, 1967 - DOMINGO ARAO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO R. LUSPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24321 July 21, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23538 July 21, 1967 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. RODOLFO VELAYO

  • G.R. No. 24322 July 21, 1967 - IN RE: ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24989 July 21, 1967 - PEDRO GRAVADOR v. EUTIQUIO MAMIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26222 July 21, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO PINEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26959 July 21, 1967 - OSCAR V. CO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27121 July 21, 1967 - JOSE OSCAR M. SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 483 July 21, 1967 - GIL DE LOS SANTOS v. MARIO BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. L-25515 July 24, 1967 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18060 July 25, 1967 - REMIGIO JOAQUIN v. ISIDRA CUJUANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26245 July 25, 1967 - PABLO MONTEZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26764 July 25, 1967 - BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL TRANSIT SHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23118 July 26, 1967 - POLICARPIO VIRAY, ET AL. v. CITY OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26605 July 27, 1967 - PABLO D. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27671 & L-27684-86 July 27, 1967 - PABLO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27477 July 28, 1967 - TEODORO JULIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 19373 July 29, 1967 - FELIX ASEJO, ET AL. v. ADRIANO CHUA JOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967 - ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-20560 July 31, 1967 - EMILIANO ACUÑA v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20649 July 31, 1967 - CHUC SIU, ET AL. v. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-21275 July 31, 1967 - ZAMBOANGA GENERAL UTILITIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21588 July 31, 1967 - ATLAS DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN M. GOZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22501 July 31, 1967 - MARIANO CALLEJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22604 July 31, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PORTUGUEZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23002 July 31, 1967 - CONCEPCION FELIX VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ v. GERONIMO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24930 July 31, 1967 - SHELL REFINING COMPANY (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27492 July 31, 1967 - SALUSTIANO O. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.