GR L 21173; (June, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21173 June 23, 1966
MELECIO B. QUETULIO, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, vs. ILDEFONSO GANITANO, defendant and appellee.
FACTS
On March 28, 1962, plaintiffs Melecio Quetulio, Apolinar Quetulio, Dominica Hernando, and Maria Ringor filed a complaint against defendant Ildefonso Ganitano for an accounting of the products of a parcel of land. On July 18, 1962, defendant filed an answer within the reglementary period, alleging plaintiffs had no right or interest in the land because they had executed a deed of quitclaim. On July 28, 1962, plaintiffs filed a motion to declare defendant in default on the ground they were not furnished a copy of the answer. The trial court, through Judge Ortega, issued an order on the same date declaring defendant in default for failure to serve plaintiffs a copy of his answer. On August 19, 1962, defendant filed a verified motion to set aside the order of default, insisting that a copy of his answer was sent to plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Harold Hernando, by ordinary mail on July 19, 1962, within the reglementary period, contained in an envelope bearing his counsel’s letterhead and delivered to a housemaid at Atty. Hernando’s residence. At the hearing on the motion, defendant’s counsel, Atty. G. Jesus B. Ruiz, and mail-carrier Gregorio Ramel testified without contradiction that the copy was mailed on July 19, 1962, and the mail-carrier delivered an ordinary mail letter from Atty. Ruiz to a housemaid at Atty. Hernando’s house on that date. On October 5, 1962, the trial court issued an order setting aside the order of default, prompting this appeal by plaintiffs.
ISSUE
Whether or not the trial court acted rightly in setting aside the order of default.
RULING
Yes, the trial court acted rightly. Appellants argued that appellee’s motion to set aside was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit as required by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that appellee’s verified motion, in its paragraph 6, stated the defense was “good and reliable” and outlined the merits, specifically that defendant purchased the land via a registered deed of absolute sale and plaintiffs acknowledged in another deed they had no interest in the land. This was deemed substantial compliance with the affidavit of merit requirement. The Rules of Court must be interpreted liberally to promote justice, and there was no showing of prejudice to appellants if the case were tried on the merits. The order setting aside the default was affirmed.