This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Martinez v. Republic,[37] the Court has clearly discussed the remedies of a party declared in default in light of the 1964 and 1997 Rules of Court and a number of jurisprudence applying and interpreting said rules. Citing Lina v. Court of Appeals,[38] the Court enumerated the above-mentioned remedies, to wit: a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has meritorious defenses; (Sec. 3, Rule 18) | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Martinez v. Republic,[46] this Court stressed that a party declared in default loses his standing in court and his right to adduce evidence and to present his defense. He, however, has the right to appeal from the judgment by default on the ground, inter alia, that the amount of the judgment is excessive or is different in kind from that prayed for, or that plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint, or that the decision is contrary to law. He may not seek the reversal of the decision on the basis of evidence submitted in the appellate court. Otherwise, his right to adduce evidence would have been returned to him.[47] We expect therefore, that the CA disposition of his pending appeal will almost certainly be based on evidence presented by petitioners ex parte. | |||||