G.R. No. L-3817 / February 21, 1911
GO CHANGJO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO ROLDAN SY-CHANGJO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Go Changjo, rendered services as an employee and clerk to the defendant, Santiago Roldan Sy-Changjo, from April 17, 1889, until December 9, 1905, at an annual salary of P460. Upon the plaintiff’s separation from service, a settlement was made, resulting in a balance of P1,021.97 due to the plaintiff, which the defendant bound himself to pay in January 1906. The defendant failed to pay. The plaintiff filed a complaint. The defendant appeared and filed an answer with a counterclaim. On the day set for trial, the defendant failed to appear. The trial court, upon the plaintiff’s motion, declared the defendant in default, proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s evidence, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the said amount with legal interest. The defendant appealed, assigning several errors.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendant in default despite his prior appearance and filing of an answer.
2. Whether such error, if any, warrants a reversal of the judgment.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court erred in declaring the defendant in default. Under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant may only be declared in default if he fails to appear at the time required in the summons or fails to answer within the time provided. Here, the defendant had appeared and filed his answer in due time. Therefore, the declaration of default was erroneous.

2. No, the error does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. The error was merely technical and did not prejudice any substantial right of the defendant. The defendant was duly informed of the trial date, as evidenced by his own motion for suspension filed before the trial. His non-appearance was due to his own neglect. Even without the erroneous declaration of default, the trial could have legally proceeded in his absence on the set date. The Supreme Court, applying Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that a judgment should not be reversed for formal or technical errors that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The findings of fact by the trial court, which were not reviewable due to the absence of the evidence on record, supported the judgment as just and proper.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.