Cathay Pacific Airways was sued for damages after two passengers lost their luggage returning to Hong Kong from Manila. Summons was served on Cathay Pacific, who filed two motions for extension to file their answer. Cathay Pacific filed their answer before the second extension expired. However, the plaintiffs then filed a motion to declare Cathay Pacific in default, which the court granted. The trial court later issued a default judgment against Cathay Pacific. Cathay Pacific appealed, arguing that they should not have been declared in default since they filed their answer within the second extension period. The appellate court agreed, finding no intent by Cathay Pacific to delay the case. The court annulled the default order and judgment.
Cathay Pacific Airways was sued for damages after two passengers lost their luggage returning to Hong Kong from Manila. Summons was served on Cathay Pacific, who filed two motions for extension to file their answer. Cathay Pacific filed their answer before the second extension expired. However, the plaintiffs then filed a motion to declare Cathay Pacific in default, which the court granted. The trial court later issued a default judgment against Cathay Pacific. Cathay Pacific appealed, arguing that they should not have been declared in default since they filed their answer within the second extension period. The appellate court agreed, finding no intent by Cathay Pacific to delay the case. The court annulled the default order and judgment.
Cathay Pacific Airways was sued for damages after two passengers lost their luggage returning to Hong Kong from Manila. Summons was served on Cathay Pacific, who filed two motions for extension to file their answer. Cathay Pacific filed their answer before the second extension expired. However, the plaintiffs then filed a motion to declare Cathay Pacific in default, which the court granted. The trial court later issued a default judgment against Cathay Pacific. Cathay Pacific appealed, arguing that they should not have been declared in default since they filed their answer within the second extension period. The appellate court agreed, finding no intent by Cathay Pacific to delay the case. The court annulled the default order and judgment.
Cathay Pacific Airways was sued for damages after two passengers lost their luggage returning to Hong Kong from Manila. Summons was served on Cathay Pacific, who filed two motions for extension to file their answer. Cathay Pacific filed their answer before the second extension expired. However, the plaintiffs then filed a motion to declare Cathay Pacific in default, which the court granted. The trial court later issued a default judgment against Cathay Pacific. Cathay Pacific appealed, arguing that they should not have been declared in default since they filed their answer within the second extension period. The appellate court agreed, finding no intent by Cathay Pacific to delay the case. The court annulled the default order and judgment.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Civil Procedure – Rule 9 Default
Cathay Pacific Airways vs Romilio, 141 SCRA 451
Facts: Samir Beiruty and Mohammed Al-Sulain arrived at the Manila International Airport via Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CPA) from Hongkong, but they were denied entry for lack of visas and they had to return to Hongkong. Having lost two luggages on the way back to Hongkong allegedly because CPA personnel in Manila negligently gave their claim tags to other persons, the said passengers subsequently filed a complaint for damages with the former Court of First Instance of Rizal against CPA. Summons was served on the defendant on May 5, 1982. CPA filed two motions for extension to file its answer. CPA filed its answer before the expiration of the second extension requested. After the answer had been filed, the plaintiffs filed a motion to declare the defendant in default. On June 30, however, even before CPA filed its opposition, the court issued the order of default. On November 19 the trial court rendered a judgement by default rendering the defendants to pay the plaintiff for damages. Within 30 days from receipt of the decision or on January 7, 1983, CPA filed a motion to lift the order of default and set aside the default judgment. The motion was denied in an order dated February 15, 1983 principally on the ground that the motion was filed almost seven months from the issuance on June 30, 1982 of the default order and the decision by then had already become final and executory. On February 22, 1983, the trial court granted a writ of execution, also on the ground that the judgment by default had become final and executory. The following day, February 23, CPA filed a notice of appeal. Issue: W/N the petitioner who had filed its answer within the second extension of the time should be declared in default. Ruling: No. In this case, It was after petitioner had filed its answer to the complaint (within the second extension of time sought) that private respondents, as plaintiffs, moved that petitioner be declared in default, which the trial court did although there was no indication of an intent on the part of petitioner to delay the case or that admission of the answer would in any way prejudice private respondents. Thus, the questioned order of default dated June 30, 1982, the default judgment of November 9, 1982, the order of February 15, 1983 denying the motion to lift the said order and judgment, and all proceedings taken thereafter in the court a quo are hereby annulled and set aside.