Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MEDISERV v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
A defendant declared in default loses his or her standing in court.[101] He or she is "deprived of the right to take part in the trial and forfeits his [or her] rights as a party litigant,"[102] has no right "to present evidence [supporting his or her] allegations,"[103] and has no right to "control the proceedings [or] cross-examine witnesses."[104] Moreover, he or she "has no right to expect that [the court] would [act] upon [his or her pleadings]"[105] or that he or she "may [oppose] motions filed against him [or her]."[106]
	GR No. 170943 2008-09-23	PEDRO T. SANTOS v. PNOC EXPLORATION CORPORATION CORONA, J.
As is readily apparent, the September 11, 2003 order did not limit itself to permitting respondent to present its evidence ex parte but in effect issued an order of default. But the trial court could not validly do that as an order of default can be made only upon motion of the claiming party.[15] Since no motion to declare petitioner in default was filed, no default order should have been issued.
	GR NO. 144568 2007-07-03	GUILLERMA S. SABLAS v. ESTERLITA S. SABLAS CORONA, J.
a motion to declare the defending party in default has been filed by the claiming party with notice to the defending party. An order of default can be made only upon motion of the claiming party.[11] It can be properly issued against the defending party who failed to file the answer within the prescribed period only if the claiming party files a motion to that effect with notice to the defending party.
	GR No. 151259 2004-10-13	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. NAZAR U. CHAVES QUISUMBING, J.
Sadly, the records reveal that petitioner failed to comply not only with one rule. Other than failing to appear during pre-trial, petitioner does not deny that its Motion for Reconsideration to lift the order of default lacked verification, notice of hearing and affidavit of merit. If not accompanied by affidavits of merit, the trial court has no authority to consider the same. [19] A motion to lift an order of default is fatally flawed and the trial court has no authority to consider the same where it was not under oath and unaccompanied by an affidavit of merit. In effect, the petitioner failed to set aside the order of default and must suffer the consequences thereof.[20]