OTERO v.

TAN

DOCTRINE: A party who is declared in default for not filing an Answer is not without any
remedies as he may still appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to
evidence or to the law.

FACTS

Roberto Otero purchased on credit petroleum products from Roger Tan and he was
unable to pay the same after several verbal demands. Tan filed a case for collection of sum of
money with damages with the MTCC. Otero failed to file his Answer within the prescribed period
so Tan filed a motion to declare the former in default. Otero opposed to motion by saying that he
was unable to receive a copy of the summons and complaint. The MTCC declared Otero in
default after his failure to appear during the motion hearing.

The MTCC ruled in favor of Tan and the RTC affirmed the same, with the latter saying
that Otero did not deny that his wife received a copy of the summons along with the Complaint.
Likewise, he was also given a copy of the Motion to Declare him in Default but instead of filing
an Answer or any pleading to set aside the order of default, he filed a Comment to the Motio. To
Declare Defendant in Default.

The CA denied the Petition for Review filed by Otero saying that any defense which
Otero may have against Tan is already deemed waived due to his failure to file an Answer.

ISSUE: W/N Otero may still raise on appeal any defense despite him being declared in default
by the lower court

HELD: YES. The rule is a defendant who fails to file an Answer loses his standing in court. The
consequences of an order of default are the following: loses his right to present evidence,
control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. He also has no right to
expect his pleadings to be acted upon by the court nor may be object to or refute evidence or
motions filed against him. However, a defendant who has been declared in default may
nevertheless appeal from the judgment by default, albeit on limited grounds. These are: failure
of plaintiff to prove material allegations; decision is contrary to law; or amount of judgment is
excessive or different in kind from that prayed for. In such cases, the appellate tribunal should
only rely on the pieces of evidence presented by the plaintiff during the ex parte presentation of
evidence.