Manila Motor Co. v. Endencia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Manila Motor Company, Inc. initiated a civil case against Valentin Teus to recover a sum of money. The underlying dispute centers on Teus's failure to satisfy a debt owed to the company. Procedural History: The case proceeded with the respondent judge declaring Teus in default for failing to file an answer despite proper service of summons. Teus did not seek to lift the default order. Following a hearing where Manila Motor Company presented its evidence, the respondent judge issued a default judgment against Teus, ordering him to pay P2,986.01 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. After the judgment became final, Manila Motor Company moved for its execution. The respondent judge denied this motion, reasoning that Teus had not been notified of the judgment, and thus it was not yet final. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Manila Motor Company, Inc. filed this petition for mandamus, arguing that the respondent judge's orders denying the motion for execution were illegal and constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner contends that under Rule 27, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, a party declared in default, who has not sought to lift the default order, is not entitled to notice of the final judgment and that such judgment should be executed upon motion. The petitioner seeks to compel the respondent judge to issue a writ of execution for the aforementioned judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for execution of the judgment. Whether a party declared in default, who has not moved to lift the order of default, is entitled to notice of the final judgment.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition for mandamus, setting aside the assailed orders and directing the respondent Judge to immediately issue the writ of execution. Costs were taxed against Valentin Teus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for execution of the judgment: The Court held that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's theory was correct and supported by the Rules of Court. Article 9, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that service of subsequent pleadings is not required for a party declared in default, unless that party has filed a motion to lift the order of default. In this case, Teus was declared in default and did not file any motion to lift the order of default. Therefore, he was not entitled to be notified of the final judgment. The judgment became final and executory upon the lapse of the period for appeal after it became known to the parties entitled to notice. The motion for execution was filed after the judgment had become final and executory. On the issue of whether a party declared in default, who has not moved to lift the order of default, is entitled to notice of the final judgment: The Court ruled in the negative. Citing Article 9, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, the Court explained that a defendant declared in default is not entitled to notice of the final judgment rendered against him, unless he has seasonably filed a motion to set aside the order of default. In such a case, he is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings. The Court reiterated this principle, citing Diaz and another v. Mendezona and another and Velez and another v. Ramas and another. In Velez, it was held that a defaulting defendant loses his standing in court and is not entitled to notices of proceedings, nor to appear in court in any manner. He cannot present evidence, nor be heard in the final trial. Therefore, Teus, having been declared in default and not having sought to lift the order of default, was not entitled to notice of the judgment, and the judgment should have been executed upon the petitioner's motion.
Main Doctrine
A party declared in default, who has not sought to lift the order of default, is not entitled to notice of the final judgment and the judgment becomes executory upon motion for execution.