Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    4 - Antonio Garcia Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Klaus
    The document discusses a case involving a petitioner who filed an action for damages against private respondents for padlocking commercial stalls rented by the petitioner. The trial court declared the private respondents in default for failing to file an answer on time. The trial court then issued a judgment of default against the private respondents and granted a writ of execution pending appeal without notice to the private respondents. The Court of Appeals set aside the order granting the writ of execution, finding that the private respondents were entitled to notice after the judgment of default was rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while a party in default loses the right to present a defense during trial, they are still entitled to notice of final judgments and subsequent proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4 - Antonio Garcia Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Klaus
    24 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case involving a petitioner who filed an action for damages against private respondents for padlocking commercial stalls rented by the petitioner. The trial court declared the private respondents in default for failing to file an answer on time. The trial court then issued a judgment of default against the private respondents and granted a writ of execution pending appeal without notice to the private respondents. The Court of Appeals set aside the order granting the writ of execution, finding that the private respondents were entitled to notice after the judgment of default was rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while a party in default loses the right to present a defense during trial, they are still entitled to notice of final judgments and subsequent proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law

    Original Title

    4- Antonio Garcia vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case involving a petitioner who filed an action for damages against private respondents for padlocking commercial stalls rented by the petitioner. The trial court declared the private respondents in default for failing to file an answer on time. The trial court then issued a judgment of default against the private respondents and granted a writ of execution pending appeal without notice to the private respondents. The Court of Appeals set aside the order granting the writ of execution, finding that the private respondents were entitled to notice after the judgment of default was rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while a party in default loses the right to present a defense during trial, they are still entitled to notice of final judgments and subsequent proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views2 pages

    4 - Antonio Garcia Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Klaus
    The document discusses a case involving a petitioner who filed an action for damages against private respondents for padlocking commercial stalls rented by the petitioner. The trial court declared the private respondents in default for failing to file an answer on time. The trial court then issued a judgment of default against the private respondents and granted a writ of execution pending appeal without notice to the private respondents. The Court of Appeals set aside the order granting the writ of execution, finding that the private respondents were entitled to notice after the judgment of default was rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that while a party in default loses the right to present a defense during trial, they are still entitled to notice of final judgments and subsequent proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    #4 ANTONIO GARCIA vs.

    THE COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH


    DIVISION) and SPS. WILLIAM UY and MA. JAJORIE UY; G.R. NO.
    83929 , 11 June 1992

    The Facts:

    In May 1987, petitioner Antonio Garcia filed an action for damages


    against private respondent spouses, William and Ma. Jajorie Uy, before the
    RTC of Pasig, for padlocking the commercial stalls rented by petitioner from
    private respondents at Virra Mall Shopping Center, Greenhills, San Juan.

    For failure of private respondents to file their answer within the


    reglementary period, petitioner moved to declare the former in default and
    for reception of his evidence ex-parte. In an order dated 7 July 1987, the trial
    court granted petitioner's motion and set the reception of evidence on 9 July
    1987. A copy of the order was served on and received by private
    respondents on 14 July 1987.

    On 1 July 1987, private respondents filed an appearance with motion


    for extension of time to file answer from said date. The trial court denied the
    motion for having been filed out of time.

    In the meantime, petitioner presented his evidence ex-parte. On 10


    August 1987, the trial court issued a judgment of default against private
    respondents, a copy of which was received by them on 18 August 1987. On
    11 August 1987, petitioner filed an ex-parte motion for execution pending
    appeal which the trial court granted on 21 August 1987 and accordingly
    issued the writ upon petitioner's filing of a bond in the amount of
    P520,000.00.

    Private espondents appealed to respondent CA, challenging the


    validity of the writ of execution because it was granted without proper notice
    to them and without hearing.

    On 22 April 1988, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision


    granting private respondents' petition for certiorari and setting aside the
    order of the trial court dated 21 August 1987 granting the writ of execution.
    A motion to reconsider the above decision was denied on 16 June 1988.
    Hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    1. Whether the CA’s ruling holding that after the judgment by default was
    rendered, the defendants automatically regained their standing and were
    entitled to notice of proceedings subsequent to the final judgment by default,
    is proper.
    Ruling:
    1. Yes. As for private respondents' (defendants') loss of standing in court, by
    reason of having been declared in default, again the Court ruled that a party
    in default loses the right to present his defense and examine or cross-
    examine witnesses. It does not mean that being declared in default, and
    thereby losing one's standing, constitutes a waiver of all rights.

    What is waived only is the right to be heard and to present evidence


    during the trial while default prevails. A party in default is still entitled to
    notice of final judgments and orders and proceedings taken subsequent
    thereto.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy