Ballecer v. Bernardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners spouses Jose S. Agawin and Felicisima Ballecer filed a civil case against respondent Jose Bernardo to recover damages for the destruction of a portion of their wall and to recover possession of a 0.80 square meter portion of their lot allegedly encroached upon by Bernardo's new wall. Bernardo denied the allegations, claiming the demolition was within his property. Bernardo filed a counterclaim, alleging petitioners encroached upon 3.70 square meters of his property and praying for their eviction and damages. Procedural History: Petitioners filed an urgent motion for extension to answer the counterclaim, which was denied and ordered stricken off the record. Subsequently, petitioners were declared in default as to the counterclaim, and Bernardo was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The court rendered a decision on the counterclaim, ordering petitioners to vacate Bernardo's property, pay compensatory, actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the orders of default and denial of extension, which were denied. They filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was initially granted then denied. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal, but their motion for extension to file an appeal bond and record on appeal was denied. The court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution, later stayed, then set aside. On motion of Bernardo, the order was set aside, and a writ of execution was ordered for specific paragraphs of the decision. An alias writ of execution was issued, and a notice of sale was published. Petitioners then filed the instant original action to set aside the orders, alias writ of execution, and notice of sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioners in default on the counterclaim and rendering judgment against them ex parte. Whether the issues raised in the counterclaim were inseparable from those in the complaint and answer, thus negating the necessity of a default order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the orders complained of, the writ of execution, alias writ of execution, notice of sale, and the decision of June 20, 1960. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners in default: The Court held that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. A motion for extension to file an answer to the counterclaim had been filed within the reglementary period, supported by plausible reasons such as a typhoon, flood, and inclement weather preventing counsel from contacting the petitioners. The Court noted that motions for extension of time may be heard and granted ex parte, citing Moya v. Barton. The failure to set the motion for hearing, which was the main reason for the lower court's adverse action, was deemed not fatal for motions of this nature. On the issue of inseparable issues: The Court found that Bernardo's counterclaim was predicated on allegations inconsistent with and controverted by the allegations in petitioners' complaint. The complaint alleged Bernardo encroached on petitioners' property, while the counterclaim asserted the opposite, that petitioners were encroaching on Bernardo's property. This contention could not be decided without passing upon the truth of the allegations in the complaint, which petitioners were entitled to prove. Therefore, the issues raised in the counterclaim were inseparable from those posed in the complaint and answer, making it unnecessary for petitioners to file an answer to the counterclaim, citing Arejola vs. Cayetano and Rosario vs. Martinez. The Court reiterated the principle from Navarro v. Bello that when the issues of the counterclaim are inseparable from those of the complaint and answer, such counterclaim partakes of the nature of a special defense which is deemed controverted even without a specific challenge in a reply. Consequently, there was no occasion for petitioners' default on the counterclaim, rendering the order of default and the judgment by default improper and void.
Main Doctrine
A court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in declaring a party in default on a counterclaim and rendering a default judgment when a motion for extension to file an answer was filed within the reglementary period with plausible reasons, and when the issues in the counterclaim are inseparable from those in the complaint, rendering the default order and subsequent judgment void.