G.R. No. 171827 . September 17, 2008.
Teresita Monzon, Petitioner, vs. Sps. James & Maria Rosa Nieves Relova and Sps. Bienvenido & Eufracia Perez, Respondents, and Addio Properties, Inc., Intervenor.

FACTS

Respondents filed a Petition for Injunction against petitioner Teresita Monzon and a Clerk of Court, Atty. Ana Liza Luna. They alleged that Monzon executed promissory notes in their favor, secured by portions of her property. Monzon later executed deeds of sale over these portions to respondents. The entire property was subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by a different creditor, Coastal Lending Corporation, with Addio Properties, Inc. as the winning bidder. A surplus from the foreclosure sale (P1,602,393.65) was deposited with the Clerk of Court. Respondents sought to have this surplus applied to Monzon’s debts to them.
Monzon moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, arguing her obligation was extinguished by dacion en pago via the deeds of sale and that respondents could not claim the surplus without a proper writ of attachment. The trial court, due to Monzon’s and her counsel’s repeated absences, allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte. It then ruled in favor of respondents, ordering the Clerk of Court to deliver the surplus funds to them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Monzon’s lack of diligence forfeited her right to present evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court denied Monzon her right to due process by rendering judgment based solely on ex parte evidence without allowing her to present her defense.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. While a court may order a party to present evidence ex parte due to unjustified absence, the resulting judgment must be based on the cause of action pleaded and the evidence presented in support thereof. Here, the initiatory pleading was a Petition for Injunction, but the relief granted was a money judgment ordering payment from funds in custodia legis. An injunction is a preventive remedy, not one for the collection of a sum of money.
The trial court erred in treating the petition as an ordinary civil action for collection without requiring respondents to amend their pleading or conform to the evidence. A court cannot grant a relief not sought in the pleadings. The ex parte presentation was premised on a petition for injunction, yet the judgment awarded a different substantive relief. Consequently, Monzon was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence specifically against a collection claim. The case was remanded to the trial court to require respondents to manifest if the petition should be treated as a collection case. If so, Monzon must be allowed to present her defense; if not, the case should be dismissed without prejudice.