G.R. No. L-41804 July 30, 1976
LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORETTE S. MAGBANUA and DANIEL Z. ROMUALDEZ, defendants, ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Luzon Surety Company filed a complaint in the City Court of Manila against Corette S. Magbanua, Daniel Z. Romualdez, and Antonio V. Raquiza to enforce an indemnity agreement related to a bail bond. Defendant Romualdez filed an answer denying the agreement’s execution and alleging forgery. Defendants Magbanua and Raquiza failed to file their answers and were declared in default. The City Court rendered judgment against the defaulting defendants but dismissed the case against Romualdez due to his death. Raquiza’s motion for reconsideration was granted, allowing him to file an answer, but he again failed to do so and was declared in default a second time. After the plaintiff reintroduced evidence, the City Court reiterated its judgment against Raquiza.
Raquiza appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and filed an answer there. The CFI disallowed his answer and affirmed the City Court’s decision. Raquiza moved for reconsideration, arguing that his appeal vacated the inferior court’s judgment, necessitating a trial de novo, and that Romualdez’s answer should be treated as his own. The CFI denied his motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in: (1) disallowing Raquiza’s answer and not conducting a trial de novo on appeal; and (2) not treating co-defendant Romualdez’s answer as Raquiza’s answer for a trial on the merits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s decision. On the first issue, the Court held that a perfected appeal from a municipal court to the CFI generally vacates the judgment and requires a trial de novo. However, this rule presupposes that the defendant had filed an answer in the inferior court. Here, Raquiza was declared in default for failure to file any answer in the City Court. Consequently, upon appeal, he had no pleading to reproduce in the CFI under Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The CFI correctly disallowed his belated answer filed only at the appellate level, as it could not cure his default in the court of origin.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Romualdez’s answer could not be deemed reproduced or adopted as Raquiza’s answer. Romualdez’s case was dismissed due to his death prior to trial, leaving no active pleading to carry over. Moreover, even if the answer were considered, Romualdez’s defense—specifically, the allegation of forgery—was personal to him. Raquiza could not vicariously adopt this defense; he was required to allege his own specific defenses in his own answer before the City Court, which he failed to do. Therefore, the CFI properly rendered judgment based on the evidence presented against the defaulting defendant Raquiza, in accordance with procedural rules governing defaults when a common cause of action exists against multiple defendants.