GR 175792; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175792 ; November 21, 2012
RUBEN C. MAGTOTO and ARTEMIA MAGTOTO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and LEONILA DELA CRUZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Leonila Dela Cruz filed a complaint for specific performance against petitioners Ruben and Artemia Magtoto for their failure to pay the balance of the purchase price for three parcels of land. After being served with summons, the petitioners thrice moved for and were granted extensions to file their Answer. Their final deadline was August 2, 2003. Instead of filing an Answer, they filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 4, 2003, which the trial court denied on September 11, 2003. Their counsel subsequently withdrew his appearance. Despite notice of the denial of their Motion to Dismiss, the petitioners failed to file an Answer. On January 23, 2004, Leonila moved to declare them in default. The trial court granted the motion on March 23, 2004. Nearly three months later, on June 25, 2004, the petitioners, through new counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to lift the order of default and admit their attached Answer.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioners’ Omnibus Motion to lift the order of default and in subsequently rendering a judgment by default.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners’ failure to file a timely Answer was unreasonable and unjustified. Upon the denial of their Motion to Dismiss, they were obligated under Section 4, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court to file their Answer within the remaining period, which they failed to do. Their counsel’s withdrawal of appearance did not relieve them of their duty to diligently pursue their case and secure new counsel promptly. The Court emphasized that a motion to lift an order of default must strictly comply with Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires an affidavit of merit showing that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that the defendant has a meritorious defense. The petitioners’ Omnibus Motion was not only filed over two months after they were declared in default but was also unaccompanied by the requisite affidavit of merit. Consequently, the default order and the subsequent judgment based on Leonila’s evidence were proper. The appellate court’s dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal was sustained.