Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > February 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. 21196 February 6, 1924 - ONG GUAN CAN v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO.

045 Phil 667:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 21196. February 6, 1924. ]

ONG GUAN CAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendant-Appellant.

Eiguren & Razon, for Appellant.

Montinola & Hontiveros for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


DEFAULT JUDGMENTS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AND ANSWER WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. — It has been frequently decided that, if pleadings or other paper essentials to a case are entrusted to the mails in due time and under proper precaution and are lost or miscarried, it will be ground for vacating a judgment by default, especially when the delay in filing the necessary pleadings was through no fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, and especially where it is shown by affidavit or other competent evidence that the defendant has a meritorious defense.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The only question presented by the appeal is whether or not the judgment by default rendered by the lower court should be set aside and annulled. We think it should be, for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the City of Iloilo on the 15th day of May, 1923. Its purpose was to recover an amount due on the policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. On the same day a copy of the complaint was served upon the defendant, through its duly authorized representative in the City of Iloilo, Messrs. Andrew & Co. The defendant filed its appearance with the clerk of the court on the 7th day of June, 1923. The notice of appearance, it is alleged and not denied, was mailed at the City of Manila on the 2d day of June, 1923. On the 5th day of June, 1923, the attorneys for the plaintiff presented a motion praying that a judgment by default be rendered against the defendant. Said motion was granted on the same day, and a judgment by default was duly entered. On the 8th day of June, 1923, the defendant, through its attorneys, filed a motion praying that the judge set aside said judgment by default and permit the defendant to answer. Said motion recited that the said notice of appearance was mailed at the City of Manila on the 2d day of June, 1923, and that the steamship Vizcaya, carrying mails, including the letter containing the notice of appearance on the 2d day of June, did not arrive at Iloilo in the usual course until after the time had expired for filing its appearance, or on the 7th day of June to the fact that said ship encountered a storm at sea. The lower court denied said motion on the 11th day of June, 1923, to which order the defendant duly excepted, and later presented another motion to the same effect, alleging and asserting that it had a valid and meritorious defense to the cause of action presented by the plaintiff. Later the second motion was also denied, to which the defendant also excepted. Some further proceedings were had in the lower court concerning the judgment by default, which have no importance in the consideration of the question presented.

From the judgment by default of the lower court the defendant appealed and now alleges that it committed an error in not granting the motions to set aside said judgment and permit the defendant to answer. It is admitted that the plaintiff and defendant resided in the same province. Under paragraph 2 of section 392 of Acts No. 190 it became the duty of the defendant to appear within twenty days from the service of the summons. The summons was served on the 15th day of May. The twenty days within which the defendant was required to appear expired on the 5th day of June. No appearance was filed by the defendant until perhaps the 7th day of June. It is admitted that the defendant mailed its appearance in the City of Manila on the 2d day of June, 1923. It is also a fact that mail, in the ordinary course, will arrive at Iloilo from Manila in two days. The defendant mailed its appearance at a time when in the ordinary course of events it would have reached the hand of the clerk of the court on or before the expiration of the time within which it was obliged to make reach its appearance. The reason that the appearance did not reach its destination was due to a fact over which the defendant had no control. The failure to make the appearance within the time prescribed by law was due to no fault of the defendant. The defendant evidently made an honest effort to comply with the law. To render a judgment against it without giving it an opportunity to be heard.

It has been frequently decided that, if pleadings or other papers essential to a case are entrusted to the mails in due season and under proper precaution and are lost or miscarried, it will be ground for vacating a judgment by default. (Boyd v. Williams and Overbaugh, 70 N.J. Law, 185; Corning v. Tripp, 1 Howard’s Practice [N. Y. ], 14; Williams v. Richmond, etc. Railroad Co., 110 N. C., 466; Chicago, etc. Railway Co. v. Eastham, 30 L. R. A. [N. S. ], 740; 23 Cyc., 943; 15 Ruling Case Law, 708.)

A delay of mail, such as occurred in the present case, in our opinion amounts to accidents or surprise for which judgment by default may be set aside, especially when the defendant shows by affidavit or otherwise that he has a valid and meritorious defense. The time fixed for filing paper in a cause is generally directory and the court always has it in its power, in the exercise of a proper discretion, to extend the time fixed by law whenever the ends of justice would seem to demand such an extension. (Wood v. Fobes and Farnham, 5 Cal., 62.)

Considering the causes which prevented the defendant from making its appearance within the time prescribed by subparagraph 2 of article 392 of Act No. 190 and considering its showing that, if permitted to answer, it has a meritorious defense, we are of the opinion, and so decide, that the judgment by default rendered by the lower court should be and is hereby set aside, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant’s appearance be admitted and that it be given ten days in which to answer from notice of this decision. And without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, 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






February-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20813 February 2, 1924 - JULIA HASEMEYER v. PNB

    046 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. 19495 February 2, 1924 - HONRION LASAM v. FRANK SMITH

    045 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 21700 February 5, 1924 - LA COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    045 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. 21196 February 6, 1924 - ONG GUAN CAN v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO.

    045 Phil 667



  • G.R. No. 21271 February 7, 1924 - ISIDRO PENSADER, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA PENSADER, ET AL.

    047 Phil 959


  • G.R. No. 21051 February 7, 1924 - SEE KIONG PHA v. TI BUN LAY

    045 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 21244 February 7, 1924 - MIGUEL VELASCO Y CUARTERONI v. REMEDIOS VISMANOS

    045 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 21074 February 9, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUDA SINGH

    045 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 21127 February 9, 1924 - ALFONSO DEL CASTILLO v. SHANNON RICHMOND

    045 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 21280 February 9, 1924 - VICENTE E. REYES v. HENRY W. ELSER

    045 Phil 685



  • G.R. No. 20832 February 11, 1924 - TOMAS CABIGAO v. PETRONA LIM

    050 Phil 844


  • G.R. No. 21026 February 13, 1924 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    045 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 21491 February 15, 1924 - LEONOR VILLGRACIA v. FERNANDO SALAS

    045 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-21119 February 19, 1924 - A. MALUENDA & CO. v. GERTRUDIS V. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    046 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. 20870 February 21, 1924 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE SAJO

    045 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 21106 February 21, 1924 - TIU SIUCO v. SIMEON HABANA

    045 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. 21087 February 23, 1924 - JULIA MILLAN v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA

    045 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-21151 February 25, 1924 - RAMON J. FERNANDEZ v. FERNANDO VERGEL DE DIOS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. 20923 February 25, 1924 - LIM SIENGCO v. LO SENG

    045 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 21017 February 25, 1924 - JOSE YAP SIONG v. DEE TIM

    045 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 21382 February 25, 1924 - HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE CO. v. JOSE E. HERNAEZ

    045 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 21186 February 27, 1924 - FREDERICK C. FISHER v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 751

  • G.R. Nos. 21168-21170 February 29, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRINIDAD G. DE LARA Y REYES

    045 Phil 754