TERESITA MONZON v. NIEVES G.R. No. 171827. September 17, 2008 (Digested)

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.