TERESITA MONZON v. NIEVES
G.R. No. 171827. September
17, 2008
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Civil Procedure: Effect of Failure to Plead
FACTS:
Spouses James and Maria
Rosa Nieves Relova and the spouses Bienvenido and Eufracia Perez, respondents
before this Court, filed against Atty. Ana Liza Luna, Clerk of Court of Branch
18 of the RTC of Tagaytay City, and herein petitioner Teresita Monzon an
initiatory pleading captioned as a Petition for Injunction.
The RTC, citing the
absence of petitioner and her counsel on said hearing date despite due notice,
granted an oral Motion by the respondents by issuing an Order allowing
the ex parte presentation of evidence by respondents.
On 1 April 2002, the
RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents mentioning that the Order
allowing the ex parte presentation of evidence by respondents
was due to the continuous and incessant absences of petitioner and counsel.
Monzon filed a Notice of
Appeal, which was approved by the trial court. Monzon claims that the RTC
gravely erred in rendering its Decision immediately after respondents presented
their evidence ex parte without giving her a chance to present
her evidence, thereby violating her right to due process of law.
Court of Appeals rendered
the assailed Decision dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeals reminded
Monzon that the essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard
and submit evidence in support of ones defense. What the law proscribes is
lack of opportunity to be heard.
Monzon claims anew that it
was a violation of her right to due process of law for the RTC to render its
Decision immediately after respondents presented their evidence ex
parte without giving her a chance to present her evidence. Monzon
stresses that she was never declared in default by the trial court. The
trial court should have, thus, set the case for hearing for the reception of
the evidence of the defense. She claims that she never waived her right to
present evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in applying the Default
Doctrine, since the court relied on the failure of Monzon to file responsive
pleading within the reglementary period.
Held:
It can be seen that despite
the fact that Monzon was not declared in default by the RTC, the RTC
nevertheless applied the effects of a default order upon petitioner under
Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court
In his book on remedial
law, former Justice Florenz D. Regalado writes that failure to appear in
hearings is not a ground for the declaration of a defendant in default:
Failure to file a responsive pleading within the
reglementary period, and not failure to appear at the hearing, is the
sole ground for an order of default (Rosario, et al. vs. Alonzo, et al.,
L-17320, June 29, 1963), except the failure to appear at a
pre-trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the
part of the defendant are followed, that is, the plaintiff shall be allowed
to present evidence ex parte and a judgment based thereon may
be rendered against the defendant (Section 5, Rule 18).[6] Also,
a default judgment may be rendered, even if the defendant had filed his answer,
under the circumstance in Sec. 3(c), Rule 29.[7]
Hence, according to Justice
Regalado, the effects of default are followed only in three instances: (1) when
there is an actual default for failure to file a responsive pleading; (2)
failure to appear in the pre-trial conference; and (3) refusal to comply with
modes of discovery under the circumstance in Sec. 3(c), Rule 29.
0 Comments