In a case for sum of money filed by A against PT Production Company (PTPC), the latter was declared in default for filing its answer one day late. In its motion to lift the order of default, PTPC explained that the belated filing of the answer was due to sheer inadvertence for which it asked the court’s consideration in the interest of substantial justice. The trial court, however, denied the motion, stating that the reglementary period for filing the answer must be strictly followed. PTPC thereafter went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, charging the trial judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for upholding technicalities over substantial justice. In his comment, A argued that the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for being an improper remedy. According to him, the correct remedy is appeal after the trial court shall have already rendered a judgment on the merits. Decide with reason(s).
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
A's argument is untenable, and PTPC's petition for certiorari is a proper remedy. Under Section 1, Rule 41 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, an order denying a motion to lift an order of
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is A's argument that certiorari is an improper remedy correct?
An order denying a motion to lift an order of default is an interlocutory order, making certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy when grave abuse of discretion is present.
Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, what is the legal status of an order denying a motion to lift an order of default?
Section 1, Rule 41 explicitly classifies an order denying a motion to lift an order of default as an interlocutory order from which no ordinary appeal lies.
When is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 available to challenge an interlocutory order?
Certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available against interlocutory orders issued with grave abuse of discretion when no appeal is provided.
Why do Philippine courts liberally construe procedural rules when dealing with motions to lift default orders?
Choices available with full access.
What constitutes grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion to lift an order of default?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Interlocutory Order
An interlocutory order is a judicial ruling that resolves an incidental issue during litigation without finally disposing of the principal case on its merits. Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal cannot be taken from an interlocutory order. An order denying a motion to lift an order of default is purely interlocutory because the main action for sum of money remains pending before the trial court. Prohibiting direct appeals from interlocutory rulings prevents piecemeal litigation, avoiding unnecessary delays and multiple appeals before a final judgment on the merits is rendered.
2. Petition for Certiorari
When an interlocutory order is issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 serves as the proper extraordinary remedy. Certiorari is available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Denying a motion to lift an order of default due to a mere one-day delay exhibits patent caprice and technicality over substantial justice. In such circumstances, certiorari lies to correct the trial judge's grave abuse of discretion without awaiting final judgment.
3. Order of Default
An order of default is a procedural sanction imposed on a defending party who fails to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period. While procedural deadlines promote judicial efficiency, courts are encouraged to decide cases on their merits rather than technicalities. Motion to lift default orders should be liberally granted, especially when the answer is filed with slight delay due to inadvertence and without intent to delay. Strict adherence to technical rules that deprives a party of the opportunity to present a defense constitutes grave abuse of discretion remediable by certiorari.