GR L 47334; (May, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47334. May 31, 1982.
Miguel Violago and Simeon Singalawa, petitioners, vs. Hon. Presiding Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr., Branch XXX, Court of First Instance of Rizal and Dalisay T. Aldover, respondents.
FACTS
Dalisay T. Aldover filed a damages suit against Miguel Violago, Simeon Singalawa, and Times Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. 5549-P. The defendants, including petitioners Violago and Singalawa, filed their answer with a compulsory counterclaim within the reglementary period. After pre-trial, the respondent judge set the case for trial on August 12, 1977.
On August 10, 1977, a new counsel for Violago and Singalawa filed an appearance with a prayer to postpone the August 12 hearing. When the case was called on that date, the petitioners and their new counsel failed to appear. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the respondent judge declared the petitioners in default. Their subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari to annul the default order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the petitioners in default for their non-appearance at the scheduled hearing despite having previously filed their answer to the complaint.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the default order. The legal logic is clear and established: a defendant who has filed an answer within the reglementary period cannot be declared in default. The filing of an answer signifies the defendant’s submission to the court’s jurisdiction and their intent to contest the claim. Consequently, the defendant’s subsequent failure to appear at a hearing or to present evidence does not constitute a default under the rules.
The Court, citing precedents such as Go Changjo v. Roldan Sy-Changjo and Siojo v. Tecson, emphasized that the proper course of action when a defendant who has answered fails to appear is for the trial to proceed in their absence, allowing the plaintiff to present ex parte evidence. The remedy is not a declaration of default, which is a severe sanction reserved for a defendant who fails to file a pleading. Since the petitioners here had duly filed their answer, the respondent judge’s issuance of the default order was a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a deprivation of their right to their day in court. The Court directed the trial court to set the case for hearing and proceed to judgment with respect to the petitioners.