CIRCULAR
NO. 37-93
TO:
- COURT
OF APPEALS,
SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS AND SHARI’A
CIRCUIT
COURTS
-
ALL
PRESIDING JUSTICES/JUDGES
AND ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF AFORESAID COURTS
-
ALL
MEMBERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE
- ALL
MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT TO MANUAL FOR CLERKS OF COURT
RE: DELEGATION
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
follows:
"1. In
Default
Cases. – When a defendant is declared in default (for failure to
file
answer), or considered as in default (for failure to appear at the
pre-trial),
the Court may now authorize the Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex
parte. The contrary doctrine laid down in Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete[1]
has been overruled in Gochangco v. CFI of Negros Occidental.[2]
"Now,
that declaration
does not reflect long observed and established judicial practice with
respect
to default cases. It is not quite consistent, too, with the several
explicitly
authorized instances under the Rules where the function of receiving
evidence
and even of making recommendatory findings of facts on the basis
thereof
may be delegated to commissioners, inclusive of the Clerk of Court.
These
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,
or
when the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the
court,
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
actions
of eminent domain and partition, respectively; Rule 86 regarding trials
of contested claims in judicial proceedings for the settlement of a
decedent’s
estate; Rule 136 empowering the clerk of court, when directed by the
judge
inter alia to receive evidence relating to the accounts of
executors,
administrators, guardians, trustees and receivers, or relative to the
settlement
of the estates of the deceased persons, or to guardianships,
trusteeships,
or receiverships. In all these instances, the competence of the clerk
of
court is assumed. Indeed, there would seem, to be sure, nothing
intrinsically
wrong in allowing presentation of evidence ex parte before a
Clerk
of Court. Such a procedure certainly does not foreclose relief to the
party
adversely affected who, for valid cause and upon appropriate and
seasonable
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
the
evidence received in this manner, discarding in the process such proofs
as are incompetent and then declare what facts have thereby been
established.
In considering and analyzing the evidence preparatory to rendition of
judgment
on the merits, it may not unreasonably be assumed that any serious
error
in the ex parte presentation of evidence, prejudicial to any
absent
party, will be detected and duly remedied by the Court, and/or may
always,
in any event; be drawn to its attention by any interested party."[3]
For your
information
and guidance.
May 28, 1993.
[Sgd.
ANDRES
R. NARVASA
Chief
Justice
_______________________
Endnotes:
[1]
66 SCRA 453 [1975]
[2]
L-49396,
January 15, 1988 [157 SCRA 200]
[3]
Reiterated in Monserrate v.
Court of
Appeals, 178 SCRA 153 [1989]; Heirs of the late Jesus Tan v. Sales,
G.R.
No. 53546, June 28, 1992; 210 SCRA 303.
|
