This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
|||||
| We affirm the RTC's denial. Indeed, default orders are not viewed with favor.[17] But in this case, petitioner failed to comply with the basic requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The motion was not under oath. There was no allegation that petitioner's failure to file an Answer or any responsive pleading was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioner merely stated that declarations of default are frowned upon, that he should be given the opportunity to present evidence in the interest of substantial justice, and that he has meritorious defenses. Unfortunately, his claim that he has meritorious defenses is unsubstantiated. He did not even state what evidence he intends to present if his motion is granted.[18] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion when the Metropolitan Trial Court admitted respondent corporation's Answer. Although it was filed beyond the extension period requested by respondent corporation, however, Sec. 11, Rule 11 grants discretion to the trial court to allow an answer or other pleading to be filed after the reglementary period, upon motion and on such terms as may be just. An answer should be admitted where it had been filed before the defendant was declared in default and no prejudice is caused to plaintiff. The hornbook rule is that default judgments are generally disfavored.[10] | |||||