Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GUILLERMA S. SABLAS v. ESTERLITA S. SABLAS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 207266 2014-06-25	HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO v. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK 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.
	GR No. 194122 2012-10-11	HECTOR HERNANDEZ v. SUSAN SAN PEDRO AGONCILLO PERALTA, J.
Petitioner's basic contention is that, pursuant to this Court's ruling in Sablas v. Sablas,[22] the MeTC should have admitted his Answer as his pleading was filed before he was declared in default.
	GR No. 190754 2010-11-17	SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES v. HEIRS OF MANUEL HUMADA ENAÑO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner correctly points out that the rule is that a defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. Indeed, where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is declared in default and there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be admitted.[13]
	GR No. 160067 2010-11-17	NELSON IMPERIAL v. MARICEL M. JOSON PEREZ, J.
Although what constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and their counsel is also subject to the sound discretion of the judge,[74] the fact that petitioners have filed their answer and third-party complaint in Civil Case No. 01-0325 also militates against the Parañaque RTC's 16 August 2004 order which, at bottom, amounted to their being declared in default. Inasmuch as procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases, courts have likewise been exhorted to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to have their cases justly determined, free from the constraints of technicalities.[75] Time and again, this Court has espoused a policy of liberality in setting aside orders of default which are frowned upon, as a case is best decided when all contending parties are able to ventilate their respective claims, present their arguments and adduce evidence in support thereof.[76] Thus, the issuance of the orders of default should be the exception rather than the rule, to be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court.[77]