TOPIC: EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT heard.

The RTC granted the petition on the

ground of lack if jurisdiction. Hence, the present
GOMEZ VS. MONTALBAN Petition filed directly before the Supreme Court.
G.R. No. 174414 | March 14, 2008 | J. Chico-
Nazario ISSUE: Whether or not a Petition for Relief was
Digested by: Aves, Genelle L. the proper remedy from an Order of Default. -
NO
DOCTRINE: There are several remedies
provided by law to lift an order of default. A HELD: Even assuming arguendo that the RTC
Petition for Relief from Judgment is not included. had no jurisdiction over respondent on account
of the non-service upon her of the summons and
FACTS: complaint, the remedy of Montalban was to file a
Elmer Gomez filed a Complaint with the RTC motion for the reconsideration of the Order of
Davao for sum of money and damages against default or a motion for new trial within 15 days
Lita Montalban. The Complaint alleged that in from receipt of notice thereof. Unfortunately,
1998, Montalban obtained a P40,000 loan from however, Montalban opted to file a Petition for
Gomez with a voluntary proposal on her part to Relief from the Judgment of the RTC, which was
pay 15% interest per month. the wrong remedy.

Montalban issued a postdated check as security When Montalban was declared in default for her
in the sum of P46,000, covering the principal failure to file an Answer to the Complaint, she
loan amount and interest charges for one month. did not immediately avail herself of any of the
When the check became due, Montalban failed remedies provided by law:
to pay the loan despite several demands.
a) The defendant in default may, at any time
In May 2003, Gomez filed the Complaint praying after discovery thereof and before judgment, file
for the payment of P238,000, representing the a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of
principal loan and interest charges, plus 25% of default on the ground that his failure to answer
the amount to be awarded as attorney's fees, as was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
well as the cost of suit. negligence, and that he has a meritorious
defense (Sec. 3, Rule 18 [now Sec. 3(b), Rule
Summons was served, but despite her receipt, 9]);
Montalban failed to file her Answer.
Consequently, she was declared in default and b) If the judgment has already been rendered
upon motion, Gomez was allowed to present when the defendant discovered the default, but
evidence ex parte. before the same has become final and
executory, he may file a motion for new trial
The RTC rendered a Decision ordering under Section 1 (a) of Rule 37;
Montalban to pay Gomez: P40,000 for the
amount of the principal loan, P57,000 for c) If the defendant discovered the default after
interest, and P15,000 attorney’s fees. the judgment has become final and executory,
he may file a petition for relief under Section 2
Montalban filed a Petition for Relief from [now Section 1] of Rule 38; and
Judgment alleging that there was no effective
service of summons upon her since there was d) He may also appeal from the judgment
no personal service of the same. She attributes rendered against him as contrary to the
her failure to file an Answer to fraud, accident, evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set
mistake or excusable negligence. She also aside the order of default has been presented by
claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction as the him (Sec. 2, Rule 41)
principal amount was only P40,000, an amount
falling within the jurisdiction of the MTC. Moreover, petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to
declare the nullity of a judgment by default is
The Petition was set for hearing. Montalban still also available if the trial court improperly
failed to appear despite being duly notified, declared a party in default, or even if the trial
hence, her Petition for Relief was dismissed. On court properly declared a party in default, if
her motion for reconsideration, the petition was
grave abuse of discretion attended such
declaration. The RTC denied the motion and ruled that while
judgments by default are generally looked upon
PETITION IS GRANTED. with disfavor, David’s motion to lift the order of
TOPIC: EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT default was fatally flawed under Section 3(b),
Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The RTC noted
DAVID VS. GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA that the motion was not under oath;
G.R. No. 170427 | January 30, 2009 | J. unaccompanied by an affidavit of merit; and
Quisumbing without any allegation that his failure to file
Digested by: Aves, Genelle L. Answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence. The RTC also ruled that it
DOCTRINE: In availing the remedies from an was not sufficient for David to merely allege that
order of default, the party must comply with all he has a meritorious defense. Hence, this direct
the requirements provided in Rule 9 Section 3. petition to the Supreme Court.

FACTS: ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Judge

In 2004, private respondents Panlilio, et al. filed gravely abused her discretion amounting to lack
a complaint for accounting, reconveyance and of jurisdiction in denying the motion to lift the
damages with prayer for preliminary attachment order of default. - NO
against Roberto David, his wife Marissa, and the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga. Panlilio, et al. HELD: There are several remedies available for
alleged that David fraudulently exceeded his David and the filing of a motion to set aside
SPA to cause the conversion of their agricultural order of default due to fraud, accident, mistake
lands to those for residential, commercial and or excusable negligence, and that he has a
industrial purposes by registering in his name meritorious defense is included. However, the
some of the lands, mortgaging others, failing to RTC denied this motion.
remit and account any money received from any
transaction involving their lands, and We affirm the RTC's denial. Indeed, default
absconding.  orders are not viewed with favor, but in this
case, petitioner failed to comply with the basic
Service of summons failed as David was abroad. requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the
RTC then ordered service by publication. Rules of Court. The motion was not under oath.
Thereafter, Panlilio, et al. moved that David be There was no allegation that the failure to file an
declared in default since he failed to answer Answer or any responsive pleading was due to
within 60 days from date of last publication. fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence. David merely stated that
David filed a motion for extension of 15 days declarations of default are frowned upon, that he
within which to file Answer, with opposition to the should be given the opportunity to present
motion to declare him in default.  evidence in the interest of substantial justice,
and that he has meritorious defenses.
In its Order, the RTC declared David in default. Unfortunately, his claim that he has meritorious
The RTC noted that the period to file the Answer defenses is unsubstantiated. He did not even
lapsed on May 19, 2005, 60 days after the last state what evidence he intends to present if his
publication on March 19, 2005, and that David motion is granted.
failed to answer despite the "many opportunities"
given to him. The RTC also denied petitioner's Furthermore, David’s failure to attach to the
motion for extension to file Answer. petition a copy of the motion to lift the order of
default, a relevant document required by Section
David moved to lift the order of default and 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, is sufficient
sought another extension of 15 days within basis for us to dismiss the petition.
which to file Answer. David stated that
declarations of default are frowned upon, that he PETITION IS DISMISSED.
should be given the opportunity to present
evidence in the interest of substantial justice,
and that he has meritorious defenses. 
 ISSUE: Whether or not the Answer should be
admitted where it is filed before a declaration of
default and no prejudice is caused to the
plaintiff. – YES
TOPIC: EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT
HELD: Indeed, where the answer is filed beyond
SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES, INC. the reglementary period but before the
VS. HEIRS OF MANUAL EÑANO, ET AL. defendant is declared in default and there is no
G.R. No. 190754 | November 17, 2010 | J. showing that defendant intends to delay the
Carpio-Morales case, the answer should be admitted.
Digested by: Aves, Genelle L.
In the case at bar, it is inconsequential that the
DOCTRINE: When the answer is filed beyond trial court declared petitioner in default on the
the reglementary period but before the same day that petitioner filed its Answer. As
defendant is declared in default and there is no reflected above, the trial court slept on
showing that defendant intends to delay the petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for almost a year,
case, the answer should be admitted. just as it also slept on respondents' Motion to
Declare petitioner in Default. It was only when
FACTS: petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion to
In 2006, the Heirs filed a complaint for quieting Dismiss and to Admit Answer that it denied the
of title with damages against San Pedro Motion to Dismiss, and acted on/granted
Cineplex before RTC San Pedro, Laguna. San respondents' Motion to Declare petitioner in
Pedro Cineplex filed a Motion to Dismiss on the Default. This is procedurally unsound.
ground that the RTC did not validly acquire
jurisdiction over it due to improper service of The policy of the law is to have every litigant's
summons. It argued that there was no case tried on the merits as much as possible.
observance of the rule that service of summons Hence, judgments by default are frowned upon.
on a defendant-corporation must be made upon A case is best decided when all contending
its president, general manager, corporate parties are able to ventilate their respective
secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel.  claims, present their arguments and adduce
evidence in support thereof. The parties are thus
The Heirs contended that the Return showed given the chance to be heard fully and the
that the summons addressed to San Pedro demands of due process are subserved.
Cineplex was served upon and received by Jay Moreover, it is only amidst such an atmosphere
Orpiada, its manager. They thus moved to that accurate factual findings and correct legal
declare petitioner in default for failure to file an conclusions can be reached by the courts.
Answer within the reglementary period.
PETITION IS GRANTED.
11 months after San Pedro Cineplex filed a
Motion to Dismiss, it filed a Motion to Withdraw
(its still unresolved) Motion to Dismiss and to
Admit Answer. The RTC denied the motion to
dismiss and declared San Pedro Cineplex in
default. 

San Pedro Cineplex filed a petition for certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus before the CA. The
CA ruled that the RTC properly acquired
jurisdiction over petitioner via manager Orpiada
and any flaw in the service of summons was
cured by the voluntary submission to the trial
court's jurisdiction when it filed the Motion to
Withdraw Motion to Dismiss and to Admit
Answer.
 HELD: MOMARCO filed its Answer only after a
period of more than four months from when it
entered its voluntary appearance in the case a
quo, and only after almost a month from when
Villamena moved to have it declared in default.
TOPIC: EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT  
If MOMARCO truly believed that it had a
MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC. VS. meritorious defense which if properly ventilated
VILLAMENA could have yielded a different conclusion by the
G.R. No. 192477 | July 27, 2016 | J. Bersamin trial court, then it could very well have moved to
Digested by: Aves, Genelle L. set aside the Order of Default immediately after
notice thereof or anytime before judgment.
DOCTRINE: A default judgment is frowned upon Under the circumstances, that would have been
because of the policy of the law to hear every the most expeditious remedy. Inauspiciously,
litigated case on the merits. But the default MOMARCO instead elected to wager on a
judgment wijl not be vacated unless the favorable judgment. Defeated, MOMARCO
defendant satisfactorily explains the failure to file would now have us set aside the Order of
the answer, and shows that it has a meritorious Default on Appeal and remand the case for
defense. further proceedings.
   
FACTS:  While the Supreme Court is aware that it is
In 2007, Villamena filed a complaint for vested with some discretion to condone
Nullification of Deed of Sale and of the Title procedural errors, we do not find that doing so
Issued against MOMARCO alleging that she is will serve the best interests of justice. To remand
the owner of a parcel of land with improvements this case to the court a quo on the invocation
located in Caloocan. that we must be liberal in setting aside orders of
default, would be to reward MOMARCO with
MOMARCO sent a letter to Villamena stating more delay. It bears stating that the Rules of
that her TCT over said property has already Procedure are liberally construed not to suit the
been cancelled since Villamena’s husband convenience of a party, but "in order to promote
already sold it to MOMARCO. However, their objective of securing a just, speedy and
Villamena claims that what was executed in inexpensive disposition of every action and
favor of MOMARCO was a mortgage not a deed proceeding.”
of sale.
It is true that the RTC had the discretion to
Villamena filed a motion to declare MOMARCO permit the filing of the answer even beyond the
in default for failure to file its answer as of said reglementary period, or to refuse to set aside the
date despite the filing of an Entry of Appearance default order where it finds no justification for the
by its counsel. Beyond the reglementary period, delay in the filing of the answer.  Conformably
MOMARCO still filed its Answer with with the judicious exercise of such discretion, the
Counterclaim, but RTC declared MOMARCO in RTC could then have admitted the belated
default and ordered that the answer be stricken answer of MOMARCO and lifted the order of
from the records.  default instead of striking the answer from the
records. However, the RTC opted not to
RTC rendered a judgment nullifying the deed of condone the inordinate delay taken by
absolute sale. The CA affirmed the Decision on MOMARCO, and went on to render the default
the ground that Villamena has sufficiently judgment on August 23, 1999. Such actions
established her claim. Hence, this appeal. by the were fully within its discretion. We uphold the
petitioner. default. While the courts should avoid orders of
default, and should be, as a rule, liberal in
ISSUE: Whether or not the the Answer filed setting aside orders of default, they could not
beyond the reglementary period, but before an ignore the abuse of procedural rules by litigants
order of default should be admitted. - NO like the MOMARCO, who only had themselves
to blame.
 
PETITION IS DENIED.
 HELD: As explained in Spouses Delos Santos v.
Carpio, there are three requirements which must
be complied with by the claiming party before
the court may declare the defending party in
default:

(1)    the claiming party must file a motion asking

the court to declare the defending party in
TOPIC: EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT default;
(2)    the defending party must be notified of the
SPOUSES BENEDICT AND SANDRA motion to declare him in default;
MANUEL VS. RAMON ONG (3)    the claiming party must prove that the
G.R. No. 205249 | October 15, 2014 | J. Leonen defending party has failed to answer within the
Digested by: Aves, Genelle L. period provided by the Rule.
 
DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Rule 9, Section 3, a All these requisites were complied with by
court may proceed to render judgment as the respondent Ramon Ong.
pleading may warrant should a defendant fail to  
timely file his or her answer. However, a court It is not disputed that Ong filed a motion to
may decline from immediately rendering declare the Spouses Manuel in default. It is also
judgment and instead require the plaintiff to not disputed that the latter filed their answer
present evidence. Per Rule 9, Section 3(a), a after the fifteen-day period, counted from March
party declared to be in default shall nevertheless 16, 2010, had lapsed. The Spouses Manuel only
be "entitled to notice of subsequent filed their answer along with their motion to lift
proceedings," although he or she may no longer order of default on September 13, 2010.
take part in the trial.   
Not only were the requisites for declaring a party
in default satisfied, the Spouses Manuel's
FACTS: motion to lift order of default was also shown to
In 2009, Ramon Ong filed with RTC Benguet a be procedurally infirm.
complaint for accion reivindicatoria. Ong  
charged the Spouses Manuel with having In Montinola, Jr. v. Republic Planters Bank, this
constructed improvements — through force, court noted that the three (3) requisites that must
intimidation, strategy, threats, and stealth — on be satisfied by a motion in order "to warrant the
a property he supposedly owned. setting aside of an order of default for failure to
  file answer, are:
In 2010, Ong filed a motion to declare the
Spouses Manuel in default for failure to file the (1)    it must be made by motion under oath by
Answer within the allowed period. RTC issued one that has knowledge of the facts;
an order of default. 3 months after, the Spouses (2)    it must be shown that the failure to file
Manuel filed a motion to lift the order of default answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
on the ground that the summons was served to excusable negligence; and
a different address. The motion to lift order of (3)    there must be a proper showing of the
default was denied because it was not sworn to existence of a meritorious defense."
and did not show that their failure to timely file
an answer "was due to fraud, accident, mistake In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the
or excusable negligence." Spouses Manuel's motion to lift order of default
was not made under oath. We add that this
Aggrieved, the Spouses Manuel filed a petition motion was not accompanied by an affidavit of
for certiorari before the CA, but the CA merit specifying the facts which would show that
dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence, their non-filing of an answer within fifteen (15)
this petition. days from March 16, 2010 was due to fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
ISSUE: Whether or not Spouses Manuel are  
entitled to relief from the order of default. - NO Failing both in making their motion under oath
and in attaching an affidavit of merits, the
Spouses Manuel's motion to lift order of default
must be deemed pro-forma. It is not even worthy
of consideration.
 
PETITION IS DISMISSED.