SUMMARY OF THE RULES ON DEFAULT

Elements of a Valid Declaration of Default

The elements of a valid declaration of default are:
1.
the court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the defending party either by service of summons or voluntary appearance;
2.
the defending party failed to file the answer within the time
allowed therefor and
3.
A MOTION TO DECLARE THE DEFENDING PARTY IN
DEFAULT has been filed by the claiming party with notice to the defending
party. (Guillerma Sablas v. Esterlita Sablas, July 3, 2007) (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
NO DEFAULT, When an Answer is Already Filed
Since the trial court already admitted the answer, it was correct in denying
the subsequent motion of respondents to declare petitioner spouses in
default. (Guillerma Sablas v. Esterlita Sablas, July 3, 2007)
In Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Hon. Romillo, Jr.,1 the Court ruled that it was
error to declare the defending party in default after the answer was filed. The
Court was in fact even more emphatic in Indiana Aerospace University v.
Commission on Higher Education:2 it was grave abuse of discretion to
declare a defending party in default despite the latters filing of an answer.
The policy of the law is to have every litigants case tried on the merits as
much as possible. Hence, judgments by default are frowned upon.3 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. The parties are thus given the chance to be heard fully and the
demands of due process are subserved. Moreover, it is only amidst such an
atmosphere that accurate factual findings and correct legal conclusions can
be reached by the courts. (Guillerma Sablas v. Esterlita Sablas, July 3, 2007)
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Other Cases Where a Motion to Declare in Default was Disallowed Because
an Answer is already filed, albeit out of time.
Ladislao vs. Pestano, 96 Phil. 890, the Court ruled:
. . . no prejudice could have been caused to plaintiff by the
admission of defendant's answer, since the latter had not yet
been declared in default and plaintiff had not yet presented her
evidence on the merits. The lower court, therefore, in the
exercise of its discretion petition, should have admitted
defendant's answer instead of declaration her in default. (p.
893.)
Similarly in Trajano vs. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712, we set aside an order of default
upon facts closely similar to the case at bar.
The conclusion that becomes inescapable from the fact that
petitioners filed their answer before respondents asked for a
1 225 Phil. 397 (1986)
2 G.R. No. 139371, 04 April 2001, 356 SCRA 367
3 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Romillo, Jr., supra.

declaration of default is that respondents were not particularly

diligent in the exercise of their rights and that they were not in
any way prejudiced by the late filing of the answer by petitioners.
Further, there was no evidence showing that petitioners intended
to unduly delay the case. On the contrary, petitioners even
attached their 'Answer' to the complaint upon the filing of their
'Motion for Admission of Answer' and did not even file an
extension of time to file the same or any other dilatory motion.