Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > May 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40491 May 28, 1975 - SEGUNDO AMANTE v. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40491. May 28, 1975.]

SEGUNDO AMANTE, Petitioner, v. HON. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch No. I, and VIGAAN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

Pedro N. Belmi for Petitioner.

Eriberto J. Fante for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


In connection with a pending civil case before respondent court, petitioner filed a written motion requesting for an extension of time within which to file his responsive pleading. The same was addressed only to the clerk of court with the request that it be submitted to the court for consideration and early resolution. The motion was granted in an order dated December 6, 1974. Subsequently, however, a motion for a bill of particulars was filed. Before the same was complied with, a motion to set aside the order of December 6, 1974 was filed alleging that the notice in petitioner’s motion for extension of time was defective for non-compliance with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. The motion for bill of particulars was withdrawn and an answer with the counterclaim was filed. The respondent court, by order dated February 14, 1975, however, set aside its questioned order, declared petitioner in default, and authorized reception of evidence by the clerk of court. Hence, this present action questioning the validity of the said order that set aside the order of December 6, 1974 granting petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file his answer.

The Supreme Court decided in favor of petitioner , holding that a motion for extension of time to file an answer may be heard and granted ex parte. Respondent private corporation was not deprived of any substantial right by person of the alleged defect of notice in petitioner’s motion.

Default order and that denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration set aside. Case remanded for further proceedings.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOTIONS; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD, EX PARTE. — The motion for extension of time within which a party may plead is not a litigated motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter an opportunity to resist the application, but an ex parte motion "made to the court in behalf of one or the other of the parties to the action, in the absence and usually without the knowledge of the other party or parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN NOTICE REQUIRED. — As a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion; and principles of natural justice demand that his rights be not affected without any opportunity to be heard.

3. ID.; ANSWER; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE SAME ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT. — Section 1 of Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes the trial court to permit the submission of an answer even after the time fixed in the rules for its presentation. The granting of extension of time plead is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the defendant may be allowed to file his answer even after the time fixed for their presentation; and the Supreme Court has set aside orders of default where the defendant’s failure to answer on time was excusable.

4. ID.; MOTIONS; MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS; EFFECT ON PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO FILE ANSWER. — The pendency of a motion for a bill of particulars interrupts the period within which to file a responsive pleading, and movant should have, after notice of the denial of his motion, the same time to serve his answer as that to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion.

5. ORDERS; ORDER OF DEFAULT; NATURE; WHEN ORDER SET ASIDE. — A default judgment does not pretend to be based on the merits of the controversy. Its existence is justified by expediency. It may, however, amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant. The possibility of such serious consequences necessarily requires a careful examination of the circumstances under which a default order was issued. And when no real injury would result to the interests of the plaintiff by the reopening of the case, the only objection to such action would, therefore, be solely on a technicality. On such an infirm foundation, it would be a grievous error to sacrifice the substantial rights of a litigant.

6. RULES OF COURT; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; PURPOSE. — The rules should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective in assisting the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases.

D E C I S I O N


ANTONIO, J.:


This case raises in issue the validity of the Order dated February 14, 1975 of respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I, setting aside its Order of December 6, 1974, granting petitioner an extension of fifteen (15) days from December 9, 1974 within which to file his answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 7799 (Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation v. Segundo Amante) and declaring the petitioner in default, notwithstanding the fact that said party had already filed his answer.

It appears that the petitioner, on December 2, 1974, filed a written motion with the trial court requesting for an extension of fifteen (15) days from December 9, 1974, within which to file his answer. Although it is not disputed that a copy of said motion was furnished the counsel for the plaintiff, the said pleading appears to have been addressed only to the Clerk of Court, with the request that said official submit the motion to the Court for its consideration and resolution immediately upon receipt thereof.

On December 6, 1974, the trial court granted the motion. Petitioner, however, on December 10, 1974, filed a "Motion for Bill of Particulars." Copy of this motion was appropriately addressed to the counsel of plaintiff, informing him that petitioner will submit the said motion to the Court for its consideration and resolution at 8:30 a.m. on December 23, 1974.

In the meantime, on December 11, 1974, private respondent corporation, as plaintiff in said case, filed a motion to set aside the trial court’s Order of December 6, 1974, alleging that the notice in petitioner’s motion of December 2, 1974 was defective for non-compliance with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, and praying that the defendant he declared in default.

The aforecited motions of the petitioner and of the corporation were set for hearing on February 7, 1975. On said date, after the respondent corporation showed to the petitioner its Articles of Incorporation, the latter agreed to withdraw his Motion for Bill of Particulars, leaving the private respondent’s motion for resolution by the Court.

On the same date (February 7, 1975), petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim to the complaint. The court a quo, however, on February 14, 1975, on the basis of its opinion that the notice in the motion of petitioner for the extension of the period within which to file an answer was defective because of its alleged failure to comply with the requirements of Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, set aside its Order of December 6, 1974, declared petitioner in default and authorized the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence of the plaintiff.

In view of the legal issue involved, this Court considered the Comment of respondent corporation as its Answer. As the matter was already amply discussed in the pleadings, this case was deemed submitted for decision.

We grant certiorari and set aside the trial court’s Order of February 14, 1975.

1. The motion for extension of time within which a party may plead is not a litigated motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter an opportunity to resist the application, 1 but an ex parte motion "made to the court in behalf of one or the other of the parties to the action, in the absence and usually without the knowledge of the other party or parties." 2 As "a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that his rights be not affected without an opportunity to be heard . . ." 3

It has been said that "ex parte motions are frequently permissible in procedural matters, and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency; and an exception to a rule requiring notice is sometimes made where notice or the resulting delay might tend to defeat the objection of the motion." 4

Section 1 of Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes the trial court to permit the submission of an answer even after the time fixed in the rules for its presentation. The granting of extension to plead is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. 5 In some cases the court allowed the defendant to file, his answer "even after the time fixed for their presentation." 6 Thus We have set aside orders of default where defendant’s failure to answer on time was excusable. 7

In the case at bar, respondent private corporation was not deprived of any substantial right by reason of the alleged defect of notice in petitioner’s motion praying for an extension of the time to plead. There are motions that may be heard and granted ex parte, and a motion for extension of time to file an answer belongs to such class. 8 It was, therefore, error for the court a quo to set aside its Order granting extension to petitioner within which to file his pleading.

2. Moreover, petitioner had filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars on December 10, 1974, and under the Rules "after service of the bill of particulars . . . or after denial of his motion, the moving party shall have the same time to serve his responsive pleading, if any is permitted by these rules, as that to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event." (Section 1 [b], Rule 12, Revised Rules of Court.) The pendency of the motion for a bill of particulars, therefore, interrupts the period within which to file a responsive pleading, and movant should have, after notice of the denial of his motion, the same time to serve his answer "as that to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion." 9

It is true that petitioner, on February 7, 1975, withdrew his Motion for a Bill of Particulars, but on the same date be also filed his answer.

In the attendant circumstances, We cannot perceive how the interests of justice was served and promoted by the precipitate action of the trial court. A default judgment does not pretend to be based on the merits of the controversy. Its existence is justified by expediency. It may, however, amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant. The possibility of such serious consequences necessarily requires a careful examination of the circumstances under which a default order was issued. And when no real injury would result to the interests of the plaintiff by the reopening of the case, the only objection to such action would, therefore, be solely on a technicality. On such an infirm foundation, it would be a grievous error to sacrifice the substantial rights of a litigant. For the rules should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective in assisting the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases.

WHEREFORE, the default order of February 14, 1975, as well as the Order of March 14, 1975, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, is hereby set aside, and this case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. Costs against private Respondent.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sturz v. Fisher, 36 N.Y.S. 893 15 Mis. 410, 25 N.Y. Civ. Proc. 202, 2 N.Y. Ann. Code. 365 60 C.J.S. 5.

2. Hunderford v. Cushing, 2 Wis. 411 60 C.J.S. 5.

3. McDonald v. Severy, 59 P. 2d 98, 6 Cal. 2d 629; Petition of Volpe, 66 N.E. 2d 146; Dougherty v. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co. 29 S.W. 2d 126, cited in 60 C.J.S. 15.

4. 60 C.J.S. 16.

5. Maralit and Lota v. Lardizabal, 54 Phil. 252.

6. Ibid.

7. Bustamante v. Alfonso, 98 Phil. 158; Herrera v. Far Eastern Transport, Inc., L-2587, Sept. 19, 1950; Castañeda v. Pestaño, 96 Phil. 890.

8. Moya v. Barton, 76 Phil. 831; Ballecer v. Bernardo, 18 SCRA 291; Sec. 2, Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court.

9. Woodcraft Work Ltd. v. Mascoso, Et Al., 92 Phil. 1021; Agcanas, Et. Al. v. Mercado, 7 SCRA 688.




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-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29129 May 8, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MABUYO

  • G.R. No. L-33516 May 8, 1975 - MARIANO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37364 May 9, 1975 - BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR. v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 2, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 547 January 29, 1975 - EMERENCIANA V. REYES v. FELIPE C. WONG

  • G.R. No. L-27674 May 12, 1975 - SOLEDAD T. CONSING, ET AL. v. JOSE T. JAMANDRE

  • G.R. No. L-40143 May 12, 1975 - MARIANO G. HIQUIANA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 487-CAR May 13, 1975 - ROMULO G. LOPEZ v. GETULIO Z. GUEVARA

  • G.R. No. L-25048 May 13, 1975 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-34314 May 13, 1975 - SOFIA PASTOR DE MIDGELY v. PIO B. FERANDOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38096 May 14, 1975 - CONCEPCION T. UY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 77-MJ May 16, 1975 - JUAN B. CASTILLO v. TEOFILO A. BARSANA

  • A.M. No. P-124 May 16, 1975 - SOLEDAD V. GANADEN v. GREGORIO N. BOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-39195 May 16, 1975 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39569 May 16, 1975 - CROMWEL DENILA, ET AL. v. JOSUE BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 804-CJ May 19, 1975 - SATURNINO SELANOVA v. ALEJANDRO E. MENDOZA

  • A.C. No. 1081 May 19, 1975 - ABUNDIO BALDOMAN v. ROQUE LUSPO

  • G.R. No. L-20203 May 19, 1975 - LA CARLOTA SUGAR CENTRAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26191 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BESANA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-39993 May 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • A.M. No. 534-CFI May 20, 1975 - LYDIA S. NOCUM v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. L-28649 May 21, 1975 - FRANCISCO J. NICOLAS v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33720-21 May 21, 1975 - PHILIPPINE BRITISH CO., INC., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 411-MJ May 22, 1975 - ERNESTO R. GONZALES v. VICENTE DE RODA OF BOGO, CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-32080 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ALQUISAR, ET. AL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36022 May 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO JOVEN

  • G.R. No. L-39115 May 26, 1975 - SEGIFREDO L. ACLARACION v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40010 May 26, 1975 - RUSSEL R. ENERIO, ET AL. v. NESTOR B. ALAMPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25921 May 27, 1975 - VANGUARD ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 41-MJ May 28, 1975 - ALFREDO ARPON v. ARISTIDES B. DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-242 May 28, 1975 - PEDRO PINEDA v. MARIO A. HIZALAN

  • A.M. No. 429-MJ May 28, 1975 - GASPAR PARENTE v. FERNANDO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-29128 May 28, 1975 - DOMINGA JAVIER, ET AL. v. SABAS MARFIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36560 May 28, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO ILAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39764 May 28, 1975 - ONG TIAO SENG v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40491 May 28, 1975 - SEGUNDO AMANTE v. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA

  • A.C. No. 203-CJ May 29, 1975 - PABLO MARCOS v. ANDRES DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 253-MJ May 29, 1975 - ALFONSO S. AUSEJO, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO P. PAJUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-24522 May 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-27534 May 29, 1975 - ATLAS TIMBER COMPANY, ET AL. v. FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST CO.

  • G.R. No. L-31041 May 20, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO C. ALDE

  • G.R. No. L-39863 May 29, 1975 - MANUEL GARCIA, ET AL. v. TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 111-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELIX CARREON v. BRUNO R. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 810-CJ May 30, 1975 - JOSE KUAN SING v. ROSENDO BALTAZAR

  • A.M. No. 852-MJ May 30, 1975 - FELISBERTO ALEGRE v. RHODIE A. NIDEA

  • A.C. No. 905 May 30, 1975 - HERMOGENES G. MENDOZA v. ARSENIO R. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-25779 May 30, 1975 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26507 May 30, 1975 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-37378 May 30, 1975 - HIDELIZA C. CAMOMOT, ET AL. v. ROMULO SENINING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38502 May 30, 1975 - PIO B. FERANDOS v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39741 May 30, 1975 - NATION MULTI SERVICE LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. AGCAOILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40187 May 30, 1975 - GENERAL TEXTILES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.