Ramos v. Costales

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252752. September 14, 2020.]

ROBERTO TUAZON RAMOS, petitioner,vs. JANET COSTALES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 September 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252752 (Roberto Tuazon Ramos v. Janet Costales). — After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court resolves to deny the instant petition and affirm the Decision 1 dated 7 February 2020 and the Resolution 2 dated 23 June 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 112341 for failure of petitioner Roberto Tuazon Ramos (Ramos) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in not lifting the order of default against Ramos.

The general rule is that courts should proceed with deciding cases on the merits and set aside orders of default as default judgments are "frowned upon." However, the basic requirements of Section 3 (b), 3 Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure must first be complied with. The defendant's motion to set aside order of default must satisfy three conditions: (1) defendant must challenge the default order before judgment; (2) defendant must have been prevented from filing his answer due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; and (3) he must have a meritorious defense. 4

In the present case, Ramos failed to satisfy all three conditions. First, Ramos did not file a Motion to Lift Order of Default but instead filed a Comment and subsequently, an Answer with Counterclaim and a Motion for Reconsideration (to the RTC Order declaring him in default). Second, Ramos' argument that "it was just recently that he was able to secure the services of a counsel who would assist and help him in the instant case" does not fall under any of the four grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence to be entitled to relief. Last, Ramos does not have a meritorious defense having been delayed 264 days from receipt of the Summons to file an Answer to the complaint. Under Section 1, 5 Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Ramos had 15 days from the time he received and acknowledged the Summons on 16 December 2016 to file an Answer. Failing to do so, the RTC correctly declared him in default.

WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Decision dated 7 February 2020 and the Resolution dated 23 June 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 112341.

SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring; rollo, pp. 21-40.

2.Id. at 18-19.

3. (b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.

4. See Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig Pharma Corporation, 729 Phil. 440, 467-476 (2014).

5. Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint with in fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.