Posted by: Kristina M. Egnar on July 26, 2018
Facts:
In 1949, Mariano Ang filed a complaint (civil case No. 8769) the
Municipal Court of Manila, against Antonio Carballo for the collection
of P1,860.84. The corresponding summons was served upon defendant
Carballo for appearance and trial on October 10, 1949. As counsel for
him Atty. J. Gonzales entered his written appearance on October 12,
1949. On the same day, the said counsel filed a motion for
postponement of the hearing for one month on the ground that he was
sick, attaching a medical certificate to prove his illness. Hearing
was postponed to October 14, 1949 at which time defendant asked for
another postponement on the ground that his counsel was still sick.
The hearing was again postponed to October 24, 1949. Inn said last two
postponement of the hearing, the municipal court warned the defendant
that the hearing could not wait until his counsel recovered from his
illness, and that if said counsel could not attend the trial he should
obtain the services of another lawyer. On the day set for hearing,
namely, October 24, 1949, neither defendant nor his counsel appeared
although there was a written manifestation of defendant's counsel
requesting further postponement because he was still sick. At the
request of plaintiff's counsel, defendant was declared in default.
Issue:
Whether or not the declaration of default is proper.
Held:
No, the court agreed that a decision by default rendered by an
inferior court is not appealable. The question now is whether
defendant (now petitioner Carballo) defaulted in the municipal court
of Manila. True, he filed no answer, but his counsel filed a written
appearance. In addition, said counsel filed a motion or manifestation
asking for postponement of the hearing on the ground that he was ill.
In the case of Quinzan vs. Arellano,2 G.R. No. 4461, December 28,
1951, the Supreme Court said that in the justice of the peace court
failure to appear, not failure to answer is the sole ground for
default. What really happened in the municipal court was that the
defendant though he filed no answer to the complaint, nevertheless, he
made his appearance and in writing at that, but because of his failure
and that of his counsel to appear on the date of the trial, a hearing
ex-parte was held and judgment was rendered thereafter. The judgment,
therefore, was not by default. So defendant Antonio Carballo had a
right to appeal as in fact he appealed, and the Court of First
Instance should not have declared the decision appealed from final and
executory under the theory that it was not appealable.
#END
Facts:
In 1949, Mariano Ang filed a complaint (civil case No. 8769) the
Municipal Court of Manila, against Antonio Carballo for the collection
of P1,860.84. The corresponding summons was served upon defendant
Carballo for appearance and trial on October 10, 1949. As counsel for
him Atty. J. Gonzales entered his written appearance on October 12,
1949. On the same day, the said counsel filed a motion for
postponement of the hearing for one month on the ground that he was
sick, attaching a medical certificate to prove his illness. Hearing
was postponed to October 14, 1949 at which time defendant asked for
another postponement on the ground that his counsel was still sick.
The hearing was again postponed to October 24, 1949. Inn said last two
postponement of the hearing, the municipal court warned the defendant
that the hearing could not wait until his counsel recovered from his
illness, and that if said counsel could not attend the trial he should
obtain the services of another lawyer. On the day set for hearing,
namely, October 24, 1949, neither defendant nor his counsel appeared
although there was a written manifestation of defendant's counsel
requesting further postponement because he was still sick. At the
request of plaintiff's counsel, defendant was declared in default.
Issue:
Whether or not the declaration of default is proper.
Held:
No, the court agreed that a decision by default rendered by an
inferior court is not appealable. The question now is whether
defendant (now petitioner Carballo) defaulted in the municipal court
of Manila. True, he filed no answer, but his counsel filed a written
appearance. In addition, said counsel filed a motion or manifestation
asking for postponement of the hearing on the ground that he was ill.
In the case of Quinzan vs. Arellano,2 G.R. No. 4461, December 28,
1951, the Supreme Court said that in the justice of the peace court
failure to appear, not failure to answer is the sole ground for
default. What really happened in the municipal court was that the
defendant though he filed no answer to the complaint, nevertheless, he
made his appearance and in writing at that, but because of his failure
and that of his counsel to appear on the date of the trial, a hearing
ex-parte was held and judgment was rendered thereafter. The judgment,
therefore, was not by default. So defendant Antonio Carballo had a
right to appeal as in fact he appealed, and the Court of First
Instance should not have declared the decision appealed from final and
executory under the theory that it was not appealable.
#END
