GR 76372; (August, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 76372 August 14, 1990
ALFONSO AFRICA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HONORABLE RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 134, Makati, Metro Manila, and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfonso Africa entered into a “Grower’s Agreement” with San Miguel Corporation (SMC), whereby SMC would deliver chicks for him to raise, and he would return them after eight weeks. SMC filed a collection suit, alleging Africa diverted and sold the mature broilers to third parties, causing damages. Africa defended that SMC first breached the contract by failing to haul the chicks on the stipulated dates, forcing him to sell elsewhere to avoid losses.
The case was set for pre-trial on June 18, 1984, at 8:30 a.m. Africa’s counsel arrived at 8:45 a.m., explaining his tardiness was due to flooded streets and an unexpected detour. The trial court, upon SMC’s motion, declared Africa in default at 8:35 a.m. and immediately allowed SMC to present evidence ex parte. Counsel promptly filed a motion to lift the default order that same day. Nevertheless, the trial court rendered a default judgment against Africa just two days later, on June 20, 1984, and denied the motion for reconsideration on June 25, 1984. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications, leading to this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner in default and rendering judgment with undue haste, thereby denying him due process.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the decisions of both lower courts. The Court emphasized that default orders are extreme remedies to be used with thoughtful hesitation, not as mechanical tools to expedite litigation. A judgment of default is not based on the merits and must be avoided to safeguard a party’s right to due process.
In this case, the default was declared for a mere ten-minute delay at pre-trial, which counsel promptly explained was due to excusable negligence from traffic conditions. The trial court’s actions—allowing ex parte presentation immediately, rendering judgment just two days later, and only ruling on the motion for reconsideration five days post-judgment—demonstrated undue haste. This effectively denied Africa any opportunity to present his evidence and defenses. The Court found that the circumstances did not show obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect by the petitioner warranting a default order. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and reception of the petitioner’s evidence.