G.R. No. 87917 . August 7, 1990.
SPS. JUAN B. DULOS and MARIA C. DULOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. MARIANO NOCOM and ANACORETA NOCOM and SPS. LORENZO ONG ENG CHONG and CARMEN SOCO, and DEPUTY SHERIFF HONORIO SANTOS of the Office of the Sheriff of Makati, Metro Manila, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Dulos were sued for forcible entry by the spouses Nocom in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Las Piñas. A pre-trial was scheduled for August 18, 1988. The day before, petitioners filed a motion to suspend proceedings, arguing that a prejudicial question of ownership existed due to a separate annulment of sale case they had filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared at the pre-trial. Instead, a representative, Ananita Rectra, appeared, claiming authority via a special power of attorney from petitioner Juan Dulos, who was hospitalized. The MTC denied the motion for suspension, declared petitioners in default, received the respondents’ evidence ex parte, and later rendered a judgment ordering the Dulos spouses to vacate the property.
Petitioners received the MTC decision on October 10, 1988. They filed an unverified motion for reconsideration on October 18, 1988, which was denied. Instead of appealing, they filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC, which was dismissed. The MTC then granted execution of its final judgment. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which denied their application for a preliminary injunction. They then filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for a preliminary injunction, thereby upholding the MTC proceedings and default judgment against the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the validity of the MTC’s default order and the subsequent denial of relief. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with procedural rules. First, the MTC correctly declared the petitioners in default for their failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. The appearance of a representative, Rectra, did not cure the defect as the required special power of attorney was not formally filed with the court. Second, the MTC properly denied the motion to suspend proceedings because the issue in the forcible entry case was possession, not ownership; the pending annulment case did not constitute a prejudicial question that would justify suspension.
Most critically, the petitioners’ procedural missteps barred relief. Their motion for reconsideration of the MTC decision was fatally defective for lack of verification and, more importantly, for not being accompanied by an affidavit of merit. An affidavit of merit is essential when seeking to set aside a default judgment, as it must show the facts constituting a valid defense. Without it, a court cannot determine if a new trial would be meritorious. The Court emphasized that while litigation is not a game of technicalities, prescribed procedure must be followed to ensure orderly administration of justice. The petitioners failed to justify a relaxation of these rules, as they did not clearly demonstrate excusable neglect or a clearly meritorious defense. Consequently, the default judgment became final and executory, and the Court of Appeals correctly refused to interfere.