Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Facts: Facts:
The case arose out of a vehicular accident wherein Gerales, La Campana filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money
the offended party filed a case for damages in the RTC against with preliminary injunction against Meralco after it was
car owner Fideldia and driver Pimentel. served a notice of disconnection for alleged nonpayment of
Before the summons were served, the claims of Gerales were bills.
amicably settled and she signed a Release of Claim. When Summons were duly served on Meralco and the latter filed
Fideldia and Pimentel were served with summons, Pimentel for a motion for extension.
wrote the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that the parties The motion however was not acted upon as it did not contain
have mutually settled the case. a notice of hearing.
RTC nevertheless declared Fideldia and Pimentel in default Since Meralco failed to file an answer to the complaint within
and set the case for presentation of Gerales’ evidence ex the reglementary period, La Campana filed an Ex-Parte
parte. Motion to Declare Defendants in Default.
RTC judge granted motion and rendered judgment in favor of
Held: La Campana.
RTC ought to have considered the letter of Pimentel as a Meralco filed a Motion to set aside Judgment by Default
responsive pleading even if it lacks the formalities required by and/or for New Trial on the ground that it filed an answer to
law. The courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of the complaint and that the judgment by default was obtained
default for default judgment is frowned upon, and unless it by fraud.
clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for
delay, it is best that trial courts give both parties every chance Held:
to fight their case fairly and in the open, without resort to RTC judge did not err. Meralco failed to indicate in its “motion
technicality. for extension of time to file an answer” a notice of place and
date of hearing, an omission for which it could offer no
Modes – Appeal explanation. It could not presume that the court will grant its
motion for extension. Thus when it filed its answer with
Tan v. CA counterclaim 14 days after the expiration of the period within
which to file an answer, Meralco was already in default and
Facts: naturally it had to bear all the legal consequences of being in
DPG filed with the MeTC an ejectment suit for non-payment default.
of rentals against Vermont Packaging that is being managed
by Tan.
During pendency of said suit, Tan filed for cancellation or
annulment of the TCT issued in the name of DPG.
As DPG repeatedly failed to file answer, Tan filed a motion to
declare DPG in default.
Trial Court granted the motion and rendered a judgment in
favor of Tan.
When DPG receive a copy of the decision, its counsel filed a
motion for new trial and to admit answer with counterclaim.
Held:
A remedy against a judgment by default is a motion for new
trial which should be filed within the period for perfecting an
appeal, and that the timely filing thereof interrupts the 15
day reglementary period. No dispute that a motion for new
trial was filed on behalf of DPG within the 15 day appeal
period.