This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-09-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| x x x x Prior to the present rule on default introduced by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Section 1 of the former Rule 18 on default is silent on whether or not there is need for a notice of a motion to declare defendant in default.[8] The Court then ruled that there is no need.[9] However, the present rule expressly requires that the motion of the claiming party should be with notice to the defending party.[10] The purpose of a notice of a motion is to avoid surprises on the opposite party and to give him time to study and meet the arguments.[11] The notice of a motion is required when the party has the right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that his right be not affected without an opportunity to be heard.[12] | |||||