GR 144568; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144568 ; July 3, 2007
GUILLERMA S. SABLAS, joined by her husband, PASCUAL LUMANAS, Petitioners, vs. ESTERLITA S. SABLAS and RODULFO S. SABLAS, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Esterlita and Rodulfo Sablas filed a complaint for judicial partition against petitioner spouses Guillerma Sablas and Pascual Lumanas. The petitioners were served summons on October 6, 1999. They filed a motion for a 15-day extension to file their answer, making the new deadline November 5, 1999. However, they only filed their answer on November 8, 1999, which was three days late. The trial court admitted the answer despite its tardiness because the respondents had not yet filed a motion to declare the petitioners in default.
The following day, November 9, 1999, the respondents filed a motion to declare the petitioners in default. The trial court denied this motion. The respondents challenged this denial via a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted the petition, ruling that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting the late answer. It held that under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, the trial court had no choice but to declare the petitioners in default for failing to meet the November 5 deadline. The case was remanded for reception of the plaintiffs’ evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting the petitioners’ answer filed beyond the extended period.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed its decision and reinstated the trial court’s order. The legal logic centers on the proper application of the rules on default. Under Section 3, Rule 9, a declaration of default is not automatic upon a party’s failure to answer on time. Three mandatory requirements must concur: (1) a motion from the claiming party, (2) notice of that motion to the defending party, and (3) proof of failure to answer. Crucially, a trial court cannot declare a party in default motu proprio; it must await a proper motion.
Here, when the petitioners filed their answer on November 8, no motion to declare them in default had yet been filed by the respondents. Therefore, no valid order of default could be issued at that point. The trial court retains sound discretion to admit an answer filed out of time, provided it is filed before a declaration of default and there is no intent to delay. The petitioners’ answer was filed before any default motion, and no dilatory intent was shown. Consequently, the trial court acted correctly within its discretion in admitting the answer. The subsequent default motion was correctly denied, as an answer had already been filed. The policy of the law is to favor the hearing of cases on their merits rather than on technicalities of procedure.