GR 177931; (December, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177931 , December 8, 2008.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. DEANG MARKETING CORPORATION and BERLITA DEANG, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Deang Marketing Corporation and Berlita Deang filed a Complaint for reformation of contract and specific performance against petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City. Summons was served on PNB on April 20, 2006, giving it until May 5, 2006 (15-day reglementary period) to file an Answer. On May 15, 2006, respondents filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in Default, set for hearing on May 24, 2006. On the same date (May 15), the RTC received PNB’s “Motion for Extension of Time [30 days up to June 11, 2006] to File Answer,” which was dated May 5, 2006 but filed via private courier (LBC) on May 14, 2006. On May 16, 2006, the RTC issued an Order denying respondents’ motion to declare default and granting PNB’s motion for extension. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. PNB filed its Answer on May 25, 2006. The RTC, by Order of August 9, 2006, denied respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents assailed the RTC Orders via certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition, annulled the RTC Orders, declared PNB in default, and ordered the Answer expunged. PNB’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring PNB in default and ordering the expunction of its Answer, thereby annulling the RTC Orders which had granted PNB’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED PNB’s petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. PNB was properly declared in default.
The Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer was filed ten days late (on May 15, 2006, for a period that expired on May 5, 2006). A motion for extension must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. The filing after the lapse of the period left no period to extend, rendering the RTC powerless to grant it. PNB’s motion contained glaring lapses: it was misleadingly dated May 5, 2006, to appear timely; it erroneously alleged receipt of summons on April 24, 2006, when the Process Server’s Return indicated April 20, 2006; its computation for the requested extension was erroneous; and it was filed via a private courier, a mode not recognized by the rules, without justification. PNB’s explanations for the delay (e.g., misplaced motion, heavy workload) were unsatisfactory and indicated an intention to delay. Procedural rules on timeliness are indispensable to prevent needless delays and ensure orderly discharge of business. Liberal construction of rules cannot be invoked when a party’s negligence is inexcusable and the circumstances are detestable. Since no Answer was filed at the time respondents’ motion to declare default was set for hearing (May 24, 2006), and PNB’s Motion for Extension was void for being filed out of time, the RTC should have declared PNB in default. The Court of Appeals correctly annulled the RTC Orders and declared PNB in default.