G.R. NO. 153696 - SPOUSES HUMBERTO DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA DELOS SANTOS, VS. HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC, BRANCH 16, DAVAO CITY AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed the same. The CA did not find the excuse proffered by petitioners, i.e ., the ignorance of procedural rules and their lawyer's unavailability, as constitutive of excusable negligence. It also ruled that for an order of default to be set aside, petitioners must have a meritorious defense or that something could be gained by having the order of default set aside; that petitioners' affidavit of merit did not show a meritorious defense since it merely stated that "they have a meritorious defense to set up against the allegation of petitioners' complaint' but there was no discussion of such defense and the facts which they intend to prove in support thereof. The CA further found unmeritorious the contention of petitioners that they were declared in default without giving them ample time to file an opposition to Metrobank's Motion to Declare them in Default; that under Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, it is provided that the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party in default, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default; and that since it is clear from the records that the reglementary period for filing an answer had expired with no responsive pleading filed by petitioners, the trial court had properly declared them in default. The CA further declared that even assuming that the trial court committed a procedural lapse in declaring petitioners in default before the scheduled hearing of Metrobank's motion, such error is not so serious as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the instant petition filed by petitioners raising the following issues, to wit: Whether or not the procedural lapse committed by Honorable Public Respondent in issuing an Order declaring petitioners' [sic] in default on 12 February 2001 or four (4) days before the scheduled hearing of Metrobank's Motion to declare petitioners' [sic] in default on 16 February 2001 is so serious as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. Whether or not LITIS PENDENTIA raised by petitioners' [sic] as an affirmative defense is a meritorious defense. Whether or not it is beyond the authority of the Honorable Trial Court to rule on the issue of LITIS PENDENTIA simply and chiefly because the defendants failed to seasonably raise it. What constitutes Affidavit of Merit? [6] Petitioners claim that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring them in default in its Order dated February 12, 2001, which was four days before the hearing set on Metrobank's Motion to Declare them in Default; that their failure to file their Answer within the reglementary period was due to the fact that the services of their counsel of choice could not be secured within the period; that they had filed their Motion to Admit Answer and their Answer as well as their Opposition to respondent's motion to declare them in default on February 15, 2001, a day prior to the scheduled date of hearing. Petitioners aver tha