Mercado v. Vicencio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff alleged that he leased a casco to the defendant for P4 a day. The defendant used the casco from December 20, 1914, to January 22, 1915, paying P60. Due to the defendant's negligence, the casco was damaged while abandoned on rocks near the shore in Manila. Repairs cost P200, and the use of the casco during the twenty days of repair was valued at P80. Procedural History: The defendant demurred to the complaint, alleging it was vague, uncertain, and unintelligible. The demurrer was overruled. The defendant was notified of this order on September 18, 1915, and noted his exception on the same day. The defendant failed to file an answer within the prescribed time. On motion of the plaintiff, the defendant was declared in default on October 12, 1915. Final judgment was rendered on November 19, 1915, for P348, plus interest and costs, after the plaintiff presented proof. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning as errors the overruling of his demurrer, his declaration in default for failure to answer, and the rendition of judgment against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's demurrer. Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendant in default for failure to answer. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant for P348.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the demurrer: The first assignment of error is without merit as the complaint clearly alleges a cause of action in a legal and logical form. The court found the complaint to be legally sufficient. On the issue of default and notice: The defendant's contention that he was not properly notified of the order overruling his demurrer is without merit. While Rule 9 of the court rules requires written notice from the plaintiff, the defendant accepted the notice given by the court by noting his exception on the same day he received it. This action constituted a waiver of his right to insist on formal written notice from the plaintiff. Unlike the case of Duran vs. Arboleda, where the defendant did not act upon an oral order and was entitled to written notice, the defendant in this case actively acknowledged the court's order. By accepting the court's notice and noting his exception, the defendant waived his rights under Rule 9 and cannot now claim he was not notified in accordance with law. Therefore, his subsequent failure to answer led to a valid declaration of default. On the issue of the judgment amount: The appeal does not contend that the testimony does not support the findings of fact upon which the judgment rests. The court found the factual basis for the P348 judgment to be supported by the evidence presented.
Main Doctrine
A defendant who accepts notice of an order overruling his demurrer by noting his exception waives his right to insist on written notice from the plaintiff as provided by the rules.