David v. Fruelda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed a complaint for accounting, reconveyance, and damages against petitioner Roberto R. David and others, alleging that petitioner fraudulently exceeded his special power of attorney by registering some of their lands in his name, mortgaging others, failing to remit proceeds, and absconding. Procedural History: Summons failed as petitioner was abroad, leading to service by publication. Petitioner failed to answer within 60 days from the last publication. Private respondents moved to declare petitioner in default. Petitioner filed a motion for extension to file an Answer, which was denied, and he was declared in default by the RTC. Petitioner then moved to lift the order of default and sought another extension, arguing that default judgments are frowned upon and he had meritorious defenses. The RTC denied this motion, citing petitioner's failure to comply with Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, specifically the lack of an oath, affidavit of merit, and allegations of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying his motion to lift the order of default, claiming defects in the service of summons and the RTC's failure to specify a reasonable time for him to answer after granting leave for extraterritorial service.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to lift the order of default. Whether the petitioner's voluntary appearance before the RTC waived any alleged defects in the service of summons.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Orders dated July 15, 2005, and September 21, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 43. The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to lift the order of default.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to lift the order of default: The Court affirmed the RTC's denial, emphasizing that while default orders are not viewed with favor, petitioner failed to comply with the basic requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The motion to lift the order of default was not under oath, lacked allegations that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit. Petitioner's mere assertion of having meritorious defenses was unsubstantiated and insufficient. The Court noted that petitioner's failure to attach a copy of the motion to lift the order of default to his petition was also a procedural defect. On the issue of waiver of defects in service of summons: The Court ruled that petitioner's voluntary appearance before the RTC, by filing two motions for extension to file an Answer, was equivalent to service of summons and cured any alleged defect therein. The motions invoked the RTC's jurisdiction and sought affirmative reliefs, thereby waiving any defect in the service of summons or even want of process, as the RTC necessarily acquired jurisdiction over his person to act on his motions.
Main Doctrine
A party who voluntarily appears before the Regional Trial Court by filing motions invoking its jurisdiction, even if seeking affirmative reliefs such as extensions or lifting of default orders, waives any alleged defect in the service of summons, including service by publication. Furthermore, a motion to lift an order of default must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, including being under oath, alleging fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence as the cause for failure to answer, and being accompanied by an affidavit of merit.