214 RAMNANI v.

CA o It is unbelievable their former lawyer did not explain to them the mandatory character of
April 28, 1993 | Cruz, J. | Pre-Trial their appearance. Their invocation of the deteriorating health of defendant Josephine
necessitating her trip abroad for appropriate medical treatment is unavailing. There is
SUMMARY: Respondent Sps. Dizon filed a complaint against petitioner Sps. Ramnani for the no medical certificate to attest such illness.
collection of a sum of money representing the alleged unremitted value of jewelry received by o Besides, at the time of the hearing of the motion, counsel for the defendants admitted
Josephine Ramnani from Juliette Dizon on consignment basis. Ramnanis submitted an answer that Josephine had not yet arrived from the States, despite their averment in their motion
with counterclaim. RTC set the case for pre-trial. Ramnanis did not appear and was she would “only be back late September or early October of this year.” This only
consequently declared in default. Ramnanis filed a motion to lift order of default, but this was indicates her light regard of her duty to appear in court.
denied. Evidence of Dizons was received ex parte. RTC eventually rendered judgment against o Moreover, the other defendant Bhagwan Ramnani did not submit any other plausible
Ramnanis. Ramnanis MFR was denied. Ramnanis filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA explanation for his absence in the pre-trial.
dismissed, holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy. The Court affirmed the CA, holding  Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the private respondents did owe
that the CA’s refusal to set aside the order of default and the default judgment thereafter issued Josephine Ramnani P900,000, as alleged in the counter-claim, that circumstance alone is
was valid since the Ramnanis’ non-appearance (deteriorating health) was inexcusable. Also, not sufficient to justify the lifting of the order of default and the default judgment.
certiorari was not the proper remedy. o The obvious reason is that a meritorious defense must concur with the satisfactory
. reason for the non-appearance of the defaulted party.
DOCTRINE: Rule 20, Section 2 – A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be
non-suited or considered as in default. ISSUE #2: W/N A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS A PROPER REMEDY - NO
 The appropriate remedy is an ordinary appeal. Rule 41, Section 2:
 Respondent Sps. Dizon filed a complaint in the RTC against petitioner Sps. Ramnani for the o A party who has been declared in default may likewise appeal from the judgment
collection of a sum of money representing the alleged unremitted value of jewelry received rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition
by Josephine Ramnani from Juliette Dizon on consignment basis. for relief to set aside the order of default has been presented by him in
o Ramnanis submitted an answer with counterclaim. accordance with Rule 38.
 The RTC set the case for pre-trial. Ramnanis did not appear and was consequently  Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation v Hontanosas (case cited by Ramnanis), where the
declared in default. Court sustained the challenge to an order of default in a petition for certiorari rather than in
 Ramnanis filed a motion to lift order of default, but this was denied. Evidence of Dizons was an ordinary appeal, does not apply.
received ex parte. o Certiorari was allowed in that case because the petitioner was illegally declared in
 The RTC rendered judgment against Ramnanis. default.
o Ramnanis MFR was denied. Ramnanis filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. o The Court held that, first, the petitioner could not be compelled to attend an unnecessary
second pre-trial after it had indicated at the earlier pre-trial that there was no possibility
 CA dismissed the petition and held that that certiorari was not the proper remedy.
of an amicable settlement; second, the pre-trial was premature because the last
ISSUE #1: W/N THE ORDER OF DEFAULT ISSUED BY THE RTC SHOULD HAVE BEEN pleading had not yet been filed at the time; and third, there was insufficient notice of the
LIFTED - NO pre-trial to the petitioner.
o In the case at bar, no such irregularities in the pre-trial have been alleged by the
 Rule 20, Section 2 – A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be
petitioner.
non-suited or considered as in default.
 Even on the supposition that certiorari was an appropriate remedy, the petition would still fail
 Lina v. CA: The remedies available to a defendant in the regional trial court who has been
because it has not been clearly shown that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
declared in default are:
refusing to set aside the default order and the default judgment.
1. The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before
o It is not error, or an abuse of discretion, on the part of the court to refuse to set aside its
judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground
order of default and to refuse to accept the answer where it finds no justifiable reason
that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect,
for the delay in the filing of the answer.
and that he has a meritorious defense;
2. If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the
CA DECISION AFFIRMED.
default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion
for new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;
3. If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and
executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and
4. He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the
evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been
presented by him. 

 The first remedy was adopted by the Ramnanis (to set aside the order of default).
 A satisfactory showing by the movant of the existence of fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable neglect is an indispensable requirement for the setting aside of a judgment of
default or the order of default.
 After going over the pleadings of the parties and the decision of the respondent court, the
Court found that the motion to lift the order of default was properly denied for non-compliance
with this requirement. Ramnanis’ non-appearance is inexcusable.