GR L 6855; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6855; April 23, 1954
LAZARA R. BIEN, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO BERAQUIT, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
A petition for quo warranto was filed by Lazara R. Bien to test the eligibility of Pedro Beraquit as a candidate for mayor of Malilipot, Albay, alleging he was ineligible because he was a resident of Baras, Catanduanes, and had not resided in Malilipot for at least six months prior to the November 13, 1951 elections. Beraquit was proclaimed elected. The court issued summons, but attempts at personal service failed, leading to substituted service. Beraquit failed to appear at the initial hearings or file an answer. The court initially rendered a decision against him but later granted his motion to set it aside to allow him to defend himself. During the new hearings, Bien presented her evidence. When Beraquit’s turn to present evidence came, Bien’s counsel objected on the ground that Beraquit had failed to file an answer, thus raising no issues. The court suspended the hearing, required memoranda, and then issued an order denying Beraquit’s request to file an answer and declaring the case submitted for decision. It then rendered a decision declaring Beraquit ineligible.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in denying respondent’s request to file an answer and to continue presenting his evidence after the court had set aside its previous decision to give him an opportunity to appear and defend himself.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The lower court did not err. The granting of a motion to file an answer after the reglementary period has expired is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The court found Beraquit guilty of gross and inexcusable negligence for failing to file an answer from the time he voluntarily appeared and submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. His voluntary appearance was equivalent to service, and it was his legal duty to file an answer within the period fixed by law. Since no answer was filed, material averments in the petition were deemed admitted, and no issues were raised, allowing for a summary judgment. The court had been liberal in setting aside its first decision, and the interest of justice was not jeopardized as Bien’s evidence was strong and Beraquit made no offer of proof that his evidence would offset it.