This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file his answer and to be heard on the merits even after the reglementary period for filing the answer expires.[28] The rule is that the defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.[29] In this case, Van der Kolk filed the answer beyond the reglementary period but before she was declared in default, and there was no showing that she intended to delay the prompt disposition of the case. Consequently, her Answer should have been admitted. | |||||
|
2007-07-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file his answer and to be heard on the merits even after the reglementary period for filing the answer expires.[15] The Rules of Court provides for discretion on the part of the trial court not only to extend the time for filing an answer but also to allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period.[16] | |||||
|
2007-02-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In relying on the presumptions of the regular performance of official duty and lawful exercise of jurisdiction by the CFI in rendering the questioned Order, dated 15 January 1960, this Court is not, as counsel for respondents allege, sacrificing the substantive right of respondents to their share in the inheritance in favor of mere procedural fiats. There is a rationale for the establishment of rules of procedure, as amply explained by this Court in De Dios v. Court of Appeals[20] - | |||||