G.R. No. L-5675 April 27, 1953
ANTONIO CARBALLO, petitioner, vs. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION in his capacity as Judge of First Instance of Manila and MARIANO ANG, respondents.

FACTS

Mariano Ang filed a complaint against Antonio Carballo in the Municipal Court of Manila for collection of a sum. Summons was served for appearance and trial on October 10, 1949. Carballo’s counsel, Atty. J. Gonzales, entered a written appearance on October 12, 1949, and filed a motion for postponement due to illness, supported by a medical certificate. The hearing was postponed to October 14, 1949, and then to October 24, 1949, with the court warning Carballo that the hearing could not wait for his counsel’s recovery and that he should obtain another lawyer if necessary. On October 24, 1949, neither Carballo nor his counsel appeared, although a written manifestation requesting further postponement due to continued illness was filed. At plaintiff’s request, defendant was declared in default. Plaintiff’s evidence was received, and judgment was rendered against Carballo. Counsel for defendant was notified of the decision and filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. Defendant perfected his appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila and filed an answer. When the case was called for hearing in the Court of First Instance, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the municipal court decision had become final and executory because, being a judgment by default, it was not appealable. The Court of First Instance agreed, held it had no jurisdiction to try the case on appeal, and ordered the record returned to the municipal court for execution. Carballo’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the present petition for certiorari, injunction, prohibition, and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the judgment rendered by the Municipal Court of Manila was a judgment by default and therefore not appealable.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment was not by default. While Carballo filed no answer, his counsel filed a written appearance and motions for postponement. Citing Flores vs. Zurbito, the Court held that an appearance in any form without objecting to jurisdiction constitutes submission to the court’s jurisdiction. Citing Quinzan vs. Arellano, the Court further held that in a justice of the peace court (or municipal court), the sole ground for default is failure to appear, not failure to answer. Since Carballo made an appearance, the judgment rendered after an ex-parte hearing due to non-appearance on the trial date was not a judgment by default. Consequently, Carballo had a right to appeal. The petition was granted, and the respondent judge was directed to proceed with the trial of the case. Costs were imposed on respondent Mariano Ang.