Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY

EVA L. GOMEZ, ASSISTED BY HER


HUSBAND, ROLANDO O. GOMEZ,
PLAINTIFF, R-QZN-
16-08340-CV

-versus-

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY,


DEFENDANT.
x----------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT / OPPOSITION
[to the Motion to Declare Defendant in Default dated 6 October
2016]

1. The Plaintiff seek to declare the Defendant in default for the

alleged omission to file the requite answer within the

reglementary period or within the extended period allowed by the

Court.

2. Through the Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer dated 26

August 2016 the undersigned counsel prayed that an additional

time of fifteen days or until 9 September 2016 be allowed for the

filing of the Answer to the Complaint.

3. Through the Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer dated

9 September 2016 the undersigned counsel was constrained to

seek an additional time of fifteen days for the filing of the Answer.

1
Since the fifteenth day [24 September 2016]

fell on a Saturday, the Answer was due on 26 September 2016

[Monday]. There was no erroneous computation of time. Thus:

Section 1, Rule 22, of the 1997 Rules of Civil


Procedure provides:

Section 1. How to compute time. In computing


any period of time prescribed or allowed by
these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any
applicable statute, the day of the act or event
from which the designated period of time begins
to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included. If the last day of the
period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a
Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the
court sits, the time shall not run until the next
working day.

4. On 23 September 2016 the undersigned counsel was once again

constrained to file the Third and Final Motion for Extension of Time

to File Answer of even date moving for time or until 6 October

2016 to file the Answer.

5. It would be noted that in all instances the undersigned counsel

exerted diligent efforts to secure documentation from the

responsible Project Office having custody of the pertinent records

relevant to this case. While several documents were earlier

submitted to the undersigned, the retrieval of the complete set of

documentation was only completed within the third period of

extension. Upon retrieval of the records, the Answer was

2
immediately filed and served by the undersigned counsel on 6

October 2016.

6. Thus, contrary to the allegation of the Plaintiff there was no

intentional disregard of the reglementary period nor sheer

intention to delay the proceedings of this case. The repeated

requests for time resulted from the need to retrieve the complete

records from the Project Office for the drafting of a coherent and

intelligent Answer to the Complaint.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that Defendants Answer to the Complaint dated 5

October 2016 be duly ADMITTED.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

21 November 2016, Quezon City.