LINA V.

CA
G.R. NO. 63397 | RELOVA, J. | APRIL 9, 1985
TOPIC: XV. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD; e) Remedy against a judgment

PETITIONER(S): Alex Lina

RESPONDENT(S): Hon. CA; Hon. Gregorio Pineda as Presiding Judge of the CFI of Rizal, Branch XIII
at Pasig; and Northern Motors, Inc.

Digested by KIT

DOCTRINE:
 The granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
 Where a judgment rendered by the respondent court is the one sought to be annulled, a petition for
relief under Rule 38 (which is a remedy in the ordinary course of law) could have been just as plain,
adequate and speedy as certiorari.

PROVISION(S): Rules 18, Sec. 9; 37, Sec. 1(a); 49, Sec. 2

FACTS:
 The present case is an appeal by certiorari/prohibition.
 (R) Northern Motors, Inc. filed with the CFI of Rizal (Pasig) a case for sum of money with damages
against (P) Alex Lina.
 On April 22, 1982, (P) Lina was served summons.
 On May 8, 1982, (R) Northern filed a motion to declare (P) Lina in default for failure to file an
answer within the reglementary period.
 On May 19, 1982, (P) Lina filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer.
 On May 26, 1982, the (R) Judge declared (P) Lina in default, allowing (R) Northern to adduce
evidence ex parte. Eventually, the same judge rendered a decision in favor of (R) Northern on July
28, 1982.
 On May 27, 1982, (P) Lina filed his answer.
 On August 11, 1982, (P) Lina filed a motion to set aside the decision. On August 25, the judge denied
such motion.
 (P) Lina filed with the CA a petition for prohibition/certiorari on October 6, 1982. This was denied on
November 29, 1982.
↗ CA: (P) Lina failed to file a responsive pleading on May 7, 1982, the last day for the filing of the
answer.
↗ CA: At the time the CFI declared him in default, the CFI was unaware that (P) Lina filed a
motion for extension by registered mail on May 5, 1982. It was received on May 19, 1982
(which is the date deemed to be the filing date.) The CFI was not able to act on such motion
immediately. In the mean time, (P) Lina filed an opposition to the motion to declare him in
default.
↗ CA: It can be assumed (as it is a necessary and logical implication) that the motion for extension
was disapproved or denied because the CFI already declared (P) Lina in default.
 As such, (P) Lina went to this (SC) court for recourse.

ISSUE(S):
1. WON the default was issued in GADALEJ – NO

RULING:
1. The granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
2. Where a judgment rendered by the respondent court is the one sought to be annulled, a petition for
relief under Rule 38 (which is a remedy in the ordinary course of law) could have been just as plain,
adequate and speedy as certiorari.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. Without costs. SO

ORDERED.