G.R. No. 29355 , July 20, 1928
DONATO BAÑARES, petitioner, vs. TOMAS FLORDELIZA, Judge of First Instance of Sorsogon, and JULIAN CAVITO, respondents.

FACTS

In November 1916, a parcel of land owned by Julian Cavito was sold at a public auction to Donato Bañares to satisfy a money judgment against Cavito. After the redemption period expired, a final deed of sale was executed in favor of Bañares. In October 1927, Cavito filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon against Bañares, seeking to redeem the land and recover ownership and possession. Bañares filed his answer within the reglementary period but failed to furnish Cavito a copy. Consequently, Cavito moved to declare Bañares in default. The trial court, presided by Judge Tomas Flordeliza, granted the motion and issued an order of default. Bañares promptly filed a motion to set aside the order of default, attaching a sworn statement of merit and copies of documents constituting a prima facie defense. He explained that his failure to serve a copy was due to his reliance on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Gochangco vs. Dean) which held that such failure alone was not sufficient ground for default. The trial court denied the motion, citing a later ruling (Gonzalez and Mauricio vs. Francisco) which held that failure to serve copies of the answer was a valid ground for default. Bañares then filed this petition for mandamus.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge commit a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to set aside the order of default against the petitioner?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus.
While the failure to furnish the plaintiff with a copy of the answer is a sufficient ground for the court to declare a defendant in default, the refusal to set aside such an order constitutes an abuse of discretion under the specific circumstances of this case. Here, the motion to lift the order of default was filed promptly and before the hearing on the merits. It was accompanied by a sworn statement of merit and documentary evidence that established a prima facie just and valid defense. Furthermore, setting aside the default would not prejudice the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that the objective of the rules is to secure a just determination of suits, and defaults are disfavored when a party shows a meritorious defense and a desire to contest the action. The respondent judge was ordered to set aside the order of default, admit Bañares’ answer, and permit him to be heard at the trial. Costs were imposed on respondent Julian Cavito.