SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF MANUEL HUMADA ENAO, represented by VIR ILIO A. !OTE, Respondents.

RESOLUTION CARPIO MORALES, J." For consideration is petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the Courts Resolution of February 15, 2010 denying outright its petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of ppeals co!!itted any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution" #he antecedents, as culled fro! the records, are as follows$
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Respondents filed on ugust 1%, 200& a co!plaint for 'uieting of title with da!ages against petitioner before the Regional #rial Court (R#C) of *an +edro, ,aguna, which co!plaint was raffled to -ranch ./ thereof" 0n 0ctober 20, 200&, petitioner filed a Motion to 1is!iss213 on the ground that the R#C did not validly ac'uire 4urisdiction over it due to i!proper service of su!!ons" 5t argued that, a!ong other things, there was no observance of the rule that service of su!!ons on a defendant6 corporation !ust be !ade upon its president, general !anager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in6house counsel"
cra

Respondents contended, however, that the 0fficers Return showed that the su!!ons addressed to petitioner was served upon and received by 7ay 0rpiada (0rpiada), its !anager" #hey thus !oved to declare petitioner in default for failure to file an nswer within the regle!entary period"223
cralaw

Close to 11 !onths after petitioner filed a Motion to 1is!iss or on *epte!ber 10, 200%, it filed a Motion to 8ithdraw 2its still unresolved3 Motion to 1is!iss and to d!it nswer" 0n even date, the trial court denied petitioners !otion to dis!iss and, acting on the !otion of respondents which they had filed after petitioners filing of the Motion to 1is!iss, declared petitioner in default"
cra

+etitioner challenged the trial courts order of default via certiorari, prohibition and !anda!us before the Court of ppeals" -y 1ecision of ugust 12, 200.,2/3 the appellate court dis!issed the petition, holding that, a!ong other things, the trial court properly ac'uired 4urisdiction over petitioner via !anager 0rpiada9 any flaw in the service of su!!ons was cured by petitioners voluntary sub!ission to the trial courts 4urisdiction when it filed the Motion to 8ithdraw Motion to 1is!iss and to d!it nswer9 and the trial court unerringly declared petitioner in default for failure to file an nswer within the regle!entary period"
cra

5ts Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution dated 1ece!ber 1%, 200.,2:3 petitioner sought relief fro! this Court via petition for review on certiorari"253
cralaw

cra

s reflected earlier, the Court denied outright the petition by Resolution of February 15, 2010" 2&3
cralaw

5n the present Motion for Reconsideration,2%3 petitioner avers that, a!ong other things, service of su!!ons upon 0rpiada violated the rules and cannot bind it9 the trial court should have been !ore liberal considering that it too; !ore than 10 !onths to resolve petitioners Motion to 1is!iss9 and on the !erits, it would have been able to establish its ownership of the property sub4ect of the case"
cra

5n its Co!!ent2<3 on the Motion for Reconsideration filed in co!pliance with this Courts Resolution2.3 of ugust 1<, 2010, respondents !aintain that 0rpiada is the Manager of petitioner corporation within the conte!plation of Rule 1:, *ection 11 of the Rules of Court upon who! service of su!!ons can be !ade, as in fact 0rpiada had previously received, on behalf of petitioner, a docu!ent fro! the R#C of *an +edro, ,aguna9 and no nswer of petitioner had actually been filed since the trial court had denied its =rgent Motion to 8ithdraw Motion to 1is!iss and to d!it nswer"
cra cra

Replying 28ith Motion to Cite Respondents and their Counsel in 1irect Conte!pt of Court3 , 2103 petitioner !aintains that the service of su!!ons upon 0rpiada was patently defective, but !ore i!portantly, argues that respondents should be cited in conte!pt for sub!itting a forged Certification2113 dated May :, 2010 allegedly signed by cting 1eputy Register of 1eeds Marites C" #a!ayo of the ,and Registration uthority of Cala!ba, ,aguna stating that the original copies of petitioners #C# >os" #6/0.&0<, /0.&0. and /0.&10 could not be located, which certification was disowned by tty" #a!ayo herself in her letter6reply2123 of 7une %, 2010"
cra cra cra cra

fter a considered hard loo; at the case, the Court finds petitioners Motion for Reconsideration i!pressed with !erit" 5n view of petitioners prayer for the re!and of the case to the trial court which a!ounts to sub!ission to the trial courts 4urisdiction, the Court finds it unnecessary to dwell on the issue of service of su!!ons" 8hat is crucial is the trial courts assailed declaration of default" +etitioner correctly points out that the rule is that a defendant?s answer should be ad!itted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no pre4udice is caused to the plaintiff" 5ndeed, where the answer is filed beyond the regle!entary period but before the defendant is declared in default and there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be ad!itted" 21/3
cralaw

5n the case at bar, it is inconse'uential that the trial court declared petitioner in default on the sa!e day that petitioner filed its nswer" s reflected above, the trial court slept on petitioners

Motion to 1is!iss for al!ost a year, 4ust as it also slept on respondents Motion to 1eclare petitioner in 1efault" 5t was only when petitioner filed a Motion to 8ithdraw Motion to 1is!iss and to d!it nswer that it denied the Motion to 1is!iss, and acted on@granted respondents Motion to 1eclare petitioner in 1efault" #his is procedurally unsound" #he policy of the law is to have every litigant?s case tried on the !erits as !uch as possible" Aence, 4udg!ents by default are frowned upon" case is best decided when all contending parties are able to ventilate their respective clai!s, present their argu!ents and adduce evidence in support thereof" #he parties are thus given the chance to be heard fully and the de!ands of due process are subserved" Moreover, it is only a!idst such an at!osphere that accurate factual findings and correct legal conclusions can be reached by the courts"21:3
cralaw

8ABRBF0RB, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is CR >#B1" #he Courts Resolution of February 15, 2010 is set aside and the case is re!anded to the court of origin, the Regional #rial Court of *an +edro, ,aguna, -ranch ./, which is directed to ad!it petitioners nswer and to thereafter ta;e appropriate action with dispatch on the case" *0 0R1BRB1"