GR L 29594; (January, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29594. January 27, 1983.
BARTOLOME CLARIDAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ARTURO B. SANTOS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed an action for partition against petitioners. Petitioners were duly summoned but failed to file their responsive pleadings within the reglementary period. Consequently, the trial court declared them in default, allowed respondents to present evidence, and rendered a decision ordering the partition of the estate and awarding damages. Petitioners, upon receipt of the decision, filed a motion to lift the order of default and set aside the judgment. They claimed they failed to answer due to honest mistake or excusable negligence, believing the new case was a continuation of a prior, dismissed partition case involving the same parties and subject matter. They also alleged defective service of summons, citing that defendants resided in distant provinces and were mostly uneducated.
The respondent judge denied the motion, finding it filed out of time, improperly verified, unaccompanied by an affidavit of merit, and failing to allege facts constituting a meritorious defense. The court noted petitioners only appeared after an adverse judgment, suggesting willful delay. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were likewise denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to lift the order of default and set aside the decision.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The granting or denial of a motion to set aside an order of default is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Petitioners’ motion was procedurally infirm: it was not timely filed, lacked proper verification, was not supported by an affidavit of merit, and failed to specifically allege a meritorious defense. Their general claims of honest mistake and ignorance of the law, without concrete particulars, were insufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity in the service of summons as indicated by the sheriffs’ returns. Petitioners’ inaction until after an adverse decision, and their delay of 99 days from the denial of their last motion before filing this petition, further evidenced laches. The Court found no arbitrariness in the lower court’s exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition.