GR L 63397; (April, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-63397 April 9, 1985
ALEX LINA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HONORABLE GREGORIO PINEDA, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXI at Pasig; and NORTHERN MOTORS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Northern Motors, Inc. filed a collection suit against petitioner Alex Lina. Summons and the complaint were served on Lina on April 22, 1982, making his answer due on May 7, 1982. On May 5, 1982, Lina sent by registered mail a motion requesting a 20-day extension from May 7 to file his answer. On May 8, 1982, with no answer filed, Northern Motors moved to declare Lina in default. The trial court set the motion for hearing on May 21, 1982. On May 19, 1982, the court received Lina’s motion for extension, and on the same day, Lina filed an opposition to the motion for default, attaching a copy of his extension motion.
The trial court, on May 26, 1982, issued an order declaring Lina in default and allowed Northern Motors to present evidence ex parte. Lina filed his answer on May 27, 1982, which was within the extended period he had sought. Subsequently, the trial court rendered a default judgment against Lina on July 28, 1982. His motion to set aside the judgment was denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s actions.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of default against the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The granting of an extension to file an answer is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. While courts generally adopt a flexible policy, a defendant cannot presume that a motion for extension will be automatically granted. In this case, Lina filed his motion for extension only two days before the reglementary period expired. The trial court’s order of default, issued after considering Northern Motors’ motion and Lina’s opposition (which was based solely on the pending extension request), carried the necessary implication that the motion for extension was denied. The Court emphasized that the available remedies for a declared default are specifically outlined in the Rules of Court, such as a motion to set aside the order of default or a motion for new trial, which are the proper recourses instead of a petition for certiorari. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.