This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Although what constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and their counsel is also subject to the sound discretion of the judge,[74] the fact that petitioners have filed their answer and third-party complaint in Civil Case No. 01-0325 also militates against the Parañaque RTC's 16 August 2004 order which, at bottom, amounted to their being declared in default. Inasmuch as procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases, courts have likewise been exhorted to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to have their cases justly determined, free from the constraints of technicalities.[75] Time and again, this Court has espoused a policy of liberality in setting aside orders of default which are frowned upon, as a case is best decided when all contending parties are able to ventilate their respective claims, present their arguments and adduce evidence in support thereof.[76] Thus, the issuance of the orders of default should be the exception rather than the rule, to be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court.[77] | |||||