SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS AND SHARI’A
AND ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF AFORESAID COURTS
MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE
MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
AMENDMENT TO MANUAL FOR CLERKS OF COURT
OF RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE IN CASE OF DEFAULT.
Section F, 1. of the
Manual for Clerks of Court [pp. 75-76] is hereby amended to read as
Cases. – When a defendant is declared in default (for failure to
answer), or considered as in default (for failure to appear at the
the Court may now authorize the Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex
parte. The contrary doctrine laid down in Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete
has been overruled in Gochangco v. CFI of Negros Occidental.
does not reflect long observed and established judicial practice with
to default cases. It is not quite consistent, too, with the several
authorized instances under the Rules where the function of receiving
and even of making recommendatory findings of facts on the basis
may be delegated to commissioners, inclusive of the Clerk of Court.
instances are set out in Rule 33, treating of presentation of evidence
before commissioners, etc., in particular situations, such as when the
trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account,
when the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the
or when issues of fact arise otherwise than upon the pleadings or while
carrying a judgment or order into effect; Rules 67 and 69, dealing with
submission of evidence also before commissioners in special civil
of eminent domain and partition, respectively; Rule 86 regarding trials
of contested claims in judicial proceedings for the settlement of a
estate; Rule 136 empowering the clerk of court, when directed by the
inter alia to receive evidence relating to the accounts of
administrators, guardians, trustees and receivers, or relative to the
of the estates of the deceased persons, or to guardianships,
or receiverships. In all these instances, the competence of the clerk
court is assumed. Indeed, there would seem, to be sure, nothing
wrong in allowing presentation of evidence ex parte before a
of Court. Such a procedure certainly does not foreclose relief to the
adversely affected who, for valid cause and upon appropriate and
application, may bring about the undoing thereof or the elimination of
prejudice thereby caused to him; and it is, after all, the Court itself
which is duty bound and has the ultimate responsibility to pass upon
evidence received in this manner, discarding in the process such proofs
as are incompetent and then declare what facts have thereby been
In considering and analyzing the evidence preparatory to rendition of
on the merits, it may not unreasonably be assumed that any serious
in the ex parte presentation of evidence, prejudicial to any
party, will be detected and duly remedied by the Court, and/or may
in any event; be drawn to its attention by any interested party."
May 28, 1993.
66 SCRA 453 
January 15, 1988 [157 SCRA 200]
Reiterated in Monserrate v.
Appeals, 178 SCRA 153 ; Heirs of the late Jesus Tan v. Sales,
No. 53546, June 28, 1992; 210 SCRA 303.