119 Monzon v Spouses Relova

119 Monzon v Spouses Relova Topic: Default

evidence -$ respondents was due to the continuous and incessant a-sences of petitioner and counsel%

The factual and procedural antecedents of this case are as f ollows:

Monzon filed a Notice of Appeal ' which was approved -$ the trial court% Monzon claims that the RT( "ravel$ erred in renderin" its Decision immediatel$ after respondents  presented their evidence ex parte without parte without "ivin" her a chance to present her evidence' there-$ violatin" her ri"ht to due process of law% #ddio !roperties' *nc% filed -efore the trial court a Motion for Intervention 6"ranted7 (ourt of #ppeals rendered the assailed Decision dismissin" the appeal% #ccordin" to the (ourt of #ppeals' Monzon showed tepid interest in havin" the case resolved with dispatch% She' thus' cannot now complain that she was denied due process when she was "iven ample opportunit$ opportunit$ to defend and assert her interests interests in the case% The The (ourt of #ppeals reminded Monzon that the essence of due process is reasona-le opportunit$ to -e heard and su-mit evidence in support of ones defense% >hat the law proscri-es is lac) of opportunit$ to  -e heard% Monzons Motion Motion for Reconsideration was denied denied in a Resolution

James and Maria Rosa Nieves Relova and the spouses Bienvenido and ufracia !erez filed a"ainst #tt$% #na &iza &una' (ler) of (ourt of RT( of Ta"a$ta$ (it$' and Teresita Monzon an initiator$ pleadin" captioned as a !etition for *n+unction% ,iled on the same -ranch% The$ alle"ed that Monzon e.ecuted a promissor$ note in favor of the spouses !erez for the amount of !/00'000%00' ! /00'000%00' with interest of five percent per month secured -$ a 002s3uare meter lot in Baran"a$ 4a $-a"al' Ta"a$ta$ Ta"a$ta$ (it$% Monzon e.ecuted a Deed of #-solute Sale over the said parcel of land in favor of the spouses !erez% The$ claim that Monzon e.ecuted another promissor$ note' this time in favor of the spouses Relova for the amount of !500'000%00 with interest of five percent per month% This loan was secured -$ a 500 s3uare meter lot 6another portion of the aforementioned7% Monzon e.ecuted a Deed of (onditional Sale over said land in favor of the spouses Relova% (oastal (oastal &endin" &endin" (orporation (orporation e.tra+udiciall$ e.tra+udiciall$ foreclosed foreclosed the entire entire 9'9/82s3u 9'9/82s3uare are meter meter proper propert$ t$ covered covered includ includin" in" the portio portions ns mort"a mort"a"ed "ed and su-se3 su-se3uen uentl$ tl$ sold sold to respondents% #lle"edl$' Monzon was inde-ted to the (oastal &endin" (orporation in the total amount amount of !'9' !'9'5% 5%%% The winnin" winnin" -idder -idder in the e.tra+udici e.tra+udicial al foreclosure' foreclosure' #ddio #ddio !ropert !roperties ies *nc%' *nc%' paid paid the amount amount of !'001 !'001'15 '158%0 8%00' 0' thus thus leavin" leavin" a !1'/05 !1'/05'9 '9%/ %/  residue% #ccordin" to respondents' this residue amount' which is in the custod$ of #tt$% &una as Branch (ler) of (ourt' should -e turned over to them pursuant to Section ;' Rule / of the Revised Rules of (ivil !rocedure% Thus' respondents pra$ in their !etition for *n+unction for a  +ud"ment 617 findin" Monzon lia-le to the spouses !erez in the amount of !1'51'000%00 and to the spouses Relova in the amount of !'000%00< 657 orderin" #tt$% &una to deliver said amounts to respondents< and 67 restrainin" #tt$% &una from deliverin" an$ amount to Monzon  pendin" such deliver$ in num-er 657% Monzon' Monzon' in her #nswer' #nswer' claimed that the !etition for *n+unction *n+unction should -e dismissed for failure to state a cause of action% #lso' that respondents could no lon"er as) for  the enforcement of the two promissor$ notes -ecause she had alread$ performed her o-li"ation to them -$ dacion en pago as pago as evidenced -$ the Deed of (onditional Sale and the Deed of  #-solute Sale% She claimed that petitioners could still claim the portions sold to them if the$ would onl$ file the proper civil cases% #s re"ards the fund in the custod$ of #tt$% &una' respondents cannot ac3uire the same without a writ of preliminar$ attachment or a writ of  "arnishment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 and Section 96c7' Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of (ivil !rocedure% RT(' citin" the a-sence of petitioner and her counsel on said hearin" date despite due notice' "ranted an oral Motion -$ the respondents -$ issuin" an =rder allowin" the ex  parte presentatio presentation n of evidence evidence -$ respondents respondents%% RT( RT( rendered rendered a Decision Decision in favor of  respondents% The Decision also mentioned that the =rder allowin" the ex parte presentation parte presentation of 

*SS?: >hether or not Monzon was declared in Default@ NOOOOOOO!!!!!! A&D: The =rder =rder -$ the trial trial court court which which allowe allowed d respond respondent entss to presen presentt their their eviden evidence ce ex  parte states:  parte states: *n view of the a-sence of MonzonC as well as her counsel despite due notice' as pra$ed for -$ counsel for -$ respondents hereinC' let the reception of respondentsC evidence in this case -e held e.2parte  -efore a commissioner who is the cler) of court of this (ourt' with orders upon her to su-mit her report immediatel$ immediatel$ upon completion completion thereof%

*t can -e seen that despite the fact that Monzon was not declared in default -$ the RT(' the RT( RT( nevertheless applied the effects of a default order upon petitioner under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court: S(% % Default; %  Default; declaration of - *f the *f the defendin" part$ fails to answer within the time allowed therefor' the court shall' upon motion of the claimin" part$ with notice to the defendin" part$' and proof of such failure' declare the defendin" part$ in default% Thereupon' the court shall proceed to render judent rantin the claiant such relief as his pleadin a" #arrant, unless the court in its discretion re$uires the claiant claiant to su%it su%it evidence& evidence& Such reception of evidence evidence a" %e deleated to the cler' of court&

6a7 Effect of order of default - A part" in default shall %e entitled to notice of su%se$uent proceedins %ut not to ta'e part in the trial%

*n his -oo) on remedial law' former Justice ,lorenz D% Re"alado writes that failure to appear in hearin"s is not a "round for the declaration of a defendant in default: ,ailure to file a responsive pleadin" within the re"lementar$  period' and not failure to appear at the hearin ' is the sole "round for  an order of default e(cept the failure to appear at a pre)trial conference #herein the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are follo#ed' that is' the plaintiff shall -e allowed to present evidence ex parte and a +ud"ment -ased thereon ma$ -e rendered a"ainst the defendant 6Section ' Rule 17% /C #lso' a default +ud"ment ma$ -e rendered' even if the defendant had filed his answer' under the circumstance in Sec% 6c7' Rule 59% 8C

Aence' accordin" to Justice Re"alado' the effects of default are followed onl$ in three instances: 617 when there is an actual default for failure to file a responsive pleadin"< 657 failure to appear in the pre2trial conference< and 67 refusal to compl$ with modes of discover$ under the circumstance in Sec% 6c7' Rule 59%*t is even worse when the court issues an order not denominated as an order of default' -ut provides f or the application of effects of default% Such amounts to the circumvention of the ri"id re3uirements of a default order' to wit: 617 the court must have validl$ ac3uired +urisdiction over the person of the defendant either -$ service of  summons or voluntar$ appearance< 657 the defendant failed to file his answer within the time allowed therefor< and 67 there must -e a motion to declare the defendant in default with notice to the latter %9C *n the case at -ar' petitioner had not failed to file her answer% Neither was notice sent to petitioner that she would -e defaulted' or that the effects of default shall -e imposed upon her% Mere non2appearance of defendants at an ordinar$ hearin" and to adduce evidence does not constitute default' when the$ have alread$ filed their answer to the complaint within the re"lementar$ period% *t is error to default a defendant after the answer had alread$ -een filed% *t should -e -orne in mind that the polic$ of the law is to have ever$ liti"ants case tried

on the merits as much as possi-le< it is for this reason that +ud"ments -$ default are frowned upon%10C Does this mean that defendants can "et awa$ with failin" to attend hearin"s despite due notice@ No' it will not% >e a"ree with petitioner that such failure to attend' when committed durin" hearin" dates for the presentation of the complainants evidence' would amount to the waiver of such defendants ri"ht to o-+ect to the evidence presented durin" such hearin"' and to cross2e.amine the witnesses presented therein% Aowever' it would not amount to a waiver of the defendants ri"ht to present evidence durin" the trial dates scheduled for the reception of evidence for the defense% *t would -e an entirel$ different issue if the failure to attend of the defendant was on a hearin" date set for the presentation of the evidence of the defense' -ut such did not occur in the case at -ar% *n view of the fore"oin"' we are' therefore' inclined to remand the case to the trial court for reception of evidence for the defense% Before we do so' however' we need to point out that the trial court had committed another error which we should address to put the remand in its proper perspective% >e refer to Monzons ar"ument as earl$ as the #nswer sta"e that respondents !etition for *n+unction had failed to state a cause of action%

*+R-OR' the Decision of the (ourt of #ppeals dated 58 Septem-er  500 and its Resolution dated 8 March 500/ are R.RS/ and S0 ASI/ % The !etition for *n+unction in (ivil (ase No% T250/9 is here-$ ordered /ISMISS/ insofar as #tt$% #na &iza &una is concerned% The !etition for *n+unction in (ivil (ase No% T250/9' insofar as  petitioner Teresita Monzon is concerned' is ordered RMAN// to the Re"ional Trial (ourt of Ta"a$ta$ (it$ for further proceedin"s% ?pon such remand' the Re"ional Trial(ourt of Ta"a$ta$ (it$ shall issue an =rder to respondents' the spouses James and Maria Rosa Nieves Relova and the spouses Bienvenido and ufracia !erez' to manifest whether the !etition for *n+unction should -e treated as a complaint for the collection of a sum of mone$% *f respondents answer in the affirmative' the Re"ional Trial (ourt shall set the case for hearin" for the presentation of the evidence for the defense% *f respondents answer in the ne"ative' the case shall -e dismissed' without pre+udice to the e.ercise of respondents ri"hts as mort"a"e creditors% No costs%