Filipinas Fabricators & Sales, Inc. v. Magsino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Filipinas Fabricators and Sales, Inc. (Filipinas), with Felipe V. Pestano and Benito Unchuan as sureties, purchased products on credit from Atlas Copco (Phils.), Inc. (Atlas), accumulating an outstanding balance. To settle this, Filipinas assigned some of its accounts receivable to Atlas with recourse, and agreed to pay the remaining balance in monthly installments with interest. Procedural History: Atlas filed a collection suit against Filipinas and its sureties, alleging default in payments. Summons was served on Filipinas and Pestano, but not on Unchuan. Filipinas requested an extension to file an answer. Before the court could act, Filipinas filed a motion for a bill of particulars. The lower court granted the extension and later required Filipinas to set the motion for hearing. Atlas filed ex-parte motions to declare defendants in default. The court issued an omnibus order denying the motion for bill of particulars for being evidentiary in nature and declaring Filipinas, Pestano, and Unchuan in default, authorizing Atlas to present evidence ex-parte. A subsequent motion to set aside the default order was denied, with the court reiterating that the motion for bill of particulars was a mere scrap of paper due to lack of notice of hearing and proof of service. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the orders of default and denial of the motion for bill of particulars, arguing that the motion for bill of particulars suspended the reglementary period to answer, and that declaring them in default before the lapse of the prescribed period after denial constituted grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in declaring the petitioners in default. Whether the motion for bill of particulars filed by the petitioners suspended the reglementary period to file an answer.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. The questioned orders are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in declaring the petitioners in default: The Court held that the petitioners' motion for a bill of particulars was a mere "scrap of paper" because it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, specifically the inclusion of a notice of hearing and proof of service. Such a defective motion does not suspend the running of the reglementary period to file an answer. Consequently, the petitioners were in default when Atlas filed its motion to declare them in default. The respondent court's subsequent actions, including requiring the petitioners to set the motion for hearing and later denying it, did not cure the fatal defect of the motion. Therefore, the declaration of default was proper and not attended by grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. On the issue of whether the motion for bill of particulars filed by the petitioners suspended the reglementary period to file an answer: The Court reiterated the established rule that a motion for bill of particulars, to be effective in suspending the period to answer, must be sufficient in form and substance, complying with the mandatory requirements of Rule 15, which include a notice of hearing and proof of service. The petitioners' motion, lacking these essential elements, was considered fatally defective and thus did not interrupt the reglementary period. The Court cited previous rulings emphasizing that such defective motions are treated as "mere scraps of paper" and do not warrant the attention of the court, nor do they affect the running of the period to plead. Therefore, the petitioners' contention that the period was suspended was without merit.
Main Doctrine
A motion for bill of particulars, to be valid and to suspend the running of the reglementary period to file an answer, must comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, particularly the inclusion of a notice of hearing and proof of service. Failure to comply renders the motion a mere scrap of paper, which does not interrupt the period to answer, and may lead to a valid declaration of default.