G.R. No. 29355 , July 20, 1928
Donato Bañares, petitioner, vs. Tomas Flordeliza, Judge of First Instance of Sorsogon, and Julian Cavito, respondents.

FACTS

Donato Bañares purchased a piece of land at a public auction sale in November 1916, following an execution in a case against Julian Gavito. After the redemption period expired, a deed of sale was executed in Bañares’ favor. In October 1927, Gavito filed a complaint against Bañares in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, seeking to redeem the land and recover ownership and possession. Bañares filed his answer within the reglementary period but failed to furnish a copy to Gavito. Consequently, Gavito moved to declare Bañares in default. The trial court, presided by Judge Tomas Flordeliza, granted the motion and issued an order of default on December 17, 1927. Before the hearing on the merits, Bañares filed a motion to set aside the order of default, accompanied by 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 belief that the doctrine in *Gochangco vs. Dean* (47 Phil. 687)which held that mere failure to furnish a copy of the answer is not sufficient ground for defaultwas still controlling. The trial court denied the motion, citing the later case of *Gonzalez and Mauricio vs. Francisco* (49 Phil. 747), which held that such failure justifies a default declaration. 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 a copy of the answer to the plaintiff is a valid ground for declaring a defendant in default, the trial court’s refusal to lift the default order under the circumstances constituted an abuse of discretion. The motion to set aside was filed promptly, before the hearing on the merits, and was accompanied by a sworn statement of merit and documentary evidence showing a prima facie just and valid defense. Moreover, setting aside the default would not prejudice the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that the objective is to afford parties their day in court, and technicalities should not be used to deny substantial justice when a defendant has a meritorious defense and acts with reasonable promptness to correct an oversight. The orders of default and denial of the motion to lift it were set aside. The respondent judge was ordered to admit Bañares’ answer and permit him to be heard at the trial. Costs were imposed on respondent Gavito.