Default Judgment Set Aside: Premature Declaration Violates Defendant's Right to Answer

The Supreme Court has clarified an important protection for defendants in civil cases: a court cannot declare a defendant in default for failing to file an answer while a motion to dismiss is still pending. In Narciso v. Garcia (G.R. No. 196877, November 21, 2012), the Court annulled a default order and emphasized that the filing of a motion to dismiss suspends the period for filing an answer.

The Facts of the Case

Estelita Garcia filed a complaint for damages against Eloisa Narciso before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga. Instead of filing an answer, Narciso filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and that venue was improperly laid.

Garcia opposed the motion and simultaneously asked the court to declare Narciso in default, citing an administrative circular discouraging motions to dismiss. The RTC denied Narciso's motion to dismiss and, in the same order, declared her in default for failing to file an answer.

Narciso filed a motion for reconsideration, but the court took years to resolve it. When it was finally denied, the trial court ruled that Narciso could no longer assail the default order because she had not filed a motion to lift it within the allowable time. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Narciso failed to allege fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence to justify lifting the default.

The Issue

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the order of default issued by the RTC.

The Ruling: No Default While Motion to Dismiss Is Pending

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Narciso, holding that the RTC committed serious error in declaring her in default.

Under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a defendant may be declared in default only upon proof of failure to file an answer within the time allowed. However, Section 1, Rule 16 expressly allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss within the time for filing an answer.

The Court explained that when a defendant files a motion to dismiss, the running of the period for filing an answer is suspended. Under Section 4, Rule 16, if the motion is denied, the movant must file an answer within the balance of the period originally available, but not less than five days, computed from receipt of notice of the denial.

Because Narciso's motion to dismiss was pending, the period for her to answer was suspended. When the RTC denied her motion and declared her in default on the same day, she was not yet in default — she still had at least five days to file her answer.

The Right to Move for Reconsideration

The Court also noted that Narciso had the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motion to dismiss. No rule prohibits such a motion. Only after the trial court denied her reconsideration did she become bound to file her answer, and only if she failed to do so could Garcia properly seek a declaration of default.

The Court emphasized that the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate this crucial point.

Practical Takeaways

• A motion to dismiss suspends the answer period. Defendants who file a motion to dismiss are not required to file an answer while the motion is pending.
• After denial, a defendant gets the balance of the original period, but not less than five days, to file an answer, counted from receipt of notice of denial.
• A court cannot declare a defendant in default on the same day it denies a motion to dismiss. The defendant must first be given the chance to file an answer within the prescribed period.
• Filing a motion for reconsideration of the denial further extends the time to answer. A defendant is not in default until the motion for reconsideration is resolved and the answer period runs without an answer being filed.
• A premature default order is a serious error that the Supreme Court will correct, even if the defendant later fails to file a motion to lift the default.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.