GR 151259; (October, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151259; October 13, 2004
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. HON. NAZAR U. CHAVES, RTC, BR. 18, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY and SPS. JUANITO & AGUSTINA OBEDENCIO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, spouses Obedencio, filed a complaint for Specific Performance against the Social Security System (SSS) to cancel a mortgage and for damages. The SSS, in its Answer, alleged the spouses had an unpaid obligation. A pre-trial conference was scheduled for February 16, 1995, but was cancelled due to the judge’s indisposition. The hearing was reset to April 18, 1995.
On the reset date, Atty. Filoteo, the SSS counsel, failed to appear due to an official mission to Zamboanga City involving other SSS cases. Upon motion of the spouses’ counsel, the respondent judge issued an Order declaring the petitioner in default and allowed the private respondents to present evidence ex-parte. The SSS filed a Motion for Reconsideration to lift the order of default, which the trial court denied.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the order of default and properly refused to lift said order.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, denying the petition. The declaration of default for non-appearance at a pre-trial is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. To be relieved from a default order, a party must file a motion under oath showing that the failure was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, accompanied by an affidavit of merit, and must demonstrate a meritorious defense.
The Court found that the petitioner’s motion to lift the order of default was fatally defective. It was neither under oath nor accompanied by the required affidavit of merit. There was also no notice of hearing attached to the motion. The motion failed to show, on its face, that the SSS had a meritorious defense. The excuse of counsel’s official mission, while potentially valid, was not properly substantiated in the motion through a sworn statement. Consequently, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The Court emphasized that while rules of procedure should be liberally construed to promote substantial justice, such liberality cannot be invoked to remedy a party’s failure to comply with basic procedural requirements essential for relief from a default order.