JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT

-Judgements by default are generally looked upon with disfavor. A default

judgment does not pretend to be based upon the merits of the controversy. A
judgement by default may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the
defendant; and the possibility of such serious consequences necessitates a careful
examination of the grounds upon which the defendant asks that it be set aside.
Under the circumstances of this case, respondent appellate court did not err nor
gravely abused its discretion when it eschewed technicalities and allowed the
parties to litigate. (Sps. Rudy S. Ampeloquio, Sr. and Lagrimas Obnamia vs.
Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 124243, June 15, 2000, Quisumbing, J.)

-It is true that for having been declared in default, Aboitiz was precluded from
presenting evidence to prove its defenses in the court a quo. We (SC) cannot,
however, agree with petitioners that this circumstance prevents the respondent
Court of Appeals from taking cognizance of Aboitiz’ defenses on appeal.
(Monarch Insurance Co., Inc., et.al. vs. Court of Appeals, et.al., GR. No.
92735; Allied Guarantee Insurance Co., vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 94867;
Equitable Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et.al. GR No. 95578, June 8,
2000, De Leon. Jr.)

-In its Decision, the Court of Appeals stated that parties in default did not need to
have the order of default against them lifted before they could appeal. In other
words, a party in default is not precluded from filing an appeal, as provided in
Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

The said provision, particularly its third paragraph, clearly states that one who has
been declared in default may appeal, without need of an order lifting the default.
Hence, the mere fact that the trial court has not lifted its default order does not bar
herein respondent from filing an appeal. (Metropolitan Bank &Trust Company
vs. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 110147, April 17, 2001, Panganiban, J.)