G.R. NO. 151098 - ERLINDA GAJUDO, FERNANDO GAJUDO, JR., ESTELITA GAJUDO, BALTAZAR GAJUDO AND DANILO ARAHAN CHUA, VS. TRADERS ROYAL BANK,[1]

Ruling

Accordingly, [petitioners], with leave of court, amended their complaint, but the Trial Court dismissed the case 'without prejudice' due to [petitioners'] failure to pay additional filing fees. "So, upon 11 June 1990, [petitioners] re-filed the complaint with the same Court, whereat it was docketed as Civil Case No. 90-5749, and assigned to Branch 98: the amended complaint substantially reproduced the allegations of the original complaint. But [petitioners] this time impleaded as additional defendants the Ceroferr Realty Corporation and/or Cesar Roque, and Lorna Roque, and included an additional cause of action, to wit: that said new defendants conspired with [respondent] bank in [canceling] the notice of lis pendens by falsifying a letter sent to and filed with the office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, purportedly for the cancellation of said notice. "Summons was served on [respondent] bank on 26 September 1990, per Sheriff's Return dated 08 October 1990. Supposing that all the defendants had filed their answer, [petitioners] filed, on 23 October 1991, a motion to set case for pre-trial, which motion was, however, denied by the Trial Court in its Order of 25 October 1991, on the ground that [respondent] bank has not yet filed its answer. On 13 November 1991[, petitioners] filed a motion for reconsideration, thereunder alleging that they received by registered mail, on 19 October 1990, a copy of [respondent] bank's answer with counterclaim, dated 04 October 1990, which copy was attached to the motion. In its Order of 14 November 1991, the trial Court denied for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration, therein holding that the answer with counterclaim filed by [respondent] bank referred to another civil case pending before Branch 90 of the same Court. "For this reason, [petitioners] filed on 02 December 1991 a motion to declare [respondent] bank in default, thereunder alleging that no answer has been filed despite the service of summons on it on 26 September 1990. "On 13 December 1991, the Trial Court declared the motion submitted for resolution upon submission by [petitioners] of proof of service of the motion on [respondent] bank. "Thus, on 16 January 1992, upon proof that [petitioners] had indeed served [respondent] bank with a copy of said motion, the Trial Court issued an Order of default against [respondent] bank. "Upon 01 December 1992, on [petitioners'] motion, they were by the Court allowed to present evidence ex parte on 07 January 1993, insofar as [respondent] bank was concerned. "Thereafter, or on 08 February 1993, the Trial Court rendered the new questioned partial decision. [7] "Aggrieved, [respondent] bank filed a motion to set aside [the] partial decision by default against Traders Royal Bank and admit [respondent] Traders Royal Bank's x x x Answer with counterclaim: thereunder it averred, amongst others, that the erroneous filing of said answer was due to an honest mistake of the typist and inadvertence of its coun