CIRCULAR NO. 37-93, May 28, 1993
CIRCULAR NO. 37-93, May 28, 1993
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
| TO: |
COURT OF APPEALS,
SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARTA DISTRICT COURTS AND SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS |
|
ALL PRESIDING JUSTICES/JUDGES AND ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF AFORESAID COURTS
|
|
|
ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION SERVICE
|
|
|
ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
|
|
| SUBJECT | Amendment to MANUAL FOR CLERKS OF COURT |
| Re: Delegation of Reception of Evidence in case of default |
Section F, 1. of the Manual for Clerks of Court (pp. 75-76) is hereby amended to read as follows:
- In Default Cases.— When a defendant is declared in
default (for failure to file answers), or considered as in default (for
failure to appear at the pre-trial), the Court may now authorize the
Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex-parte. The contrary doctrine laid
down in Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete[1] has been overruled in Gochangco v. CFI of Negros Occidental.[2]
“Now, that declaration does not reflect long
observed and established judicial practice with respect to default
cases. It is not quite consistent, too, with the several explicity
authorized instances uinder the Rules where the function of receiving
evidence and even of making recommendatory findings of facts on the
basis thereof may be delegated to commissioners, inclusive of the Clerk
of Court. These instances are set out in Rule 33, treating of
presentation of evidence before commissioners, etc., in particula
situations, such as when the trial of an issue of fact requires tb
examination of a long account, or when the taking of an accout is
necessary for the information of the court, or when issues fact arise
otherwise than upon the pleadings or while carrryi a judgment or order
into effect; Rules 67 and 69, dealing wi submission of evidence also
before commissioners in special civil actions of eminent domain and
partition, respectively; Rule 86 regarding trials of contested claims in
judicial proceedings for the settlement of a decedent’s estate; Rule
136 empowering thef clerk of court, when directed by the judge inter alia
to receive evidence relating to the accounts of executors,
administrators, guardians, trustees and receivers, or relative to the
settlemento of the estates of deceased persons, or to guardianships,
trustees or receiverships. In all these instances, the competence of the
clerk of court is assumed. Indeed, there would seem, to be sure,
nothing intrinsically wrong in allowing presentation of evidence
ex-parte before a Clerk of Court. Such a procedure certainly does not
foreclose relief to the party adversely affected who, for valid cause
and upon appropriate and seasonable application, may bring about the
undoing thereof or the elimination of prejudice thereby caused to him;
and it is, after all, the Court itself which’ is duty bound and has the
ultimate responsibility to pass upon the evidence received in this
manner, discarding in the process such proofs as are incompetent and
then declare what facts have thereby been established. In considering
and analyzing the evidence preparatory to rendition of judgment on the
merits, it may not unreasonably be assumed that any serious error in the
ex-parte presentation of evidence, prejudicial to any absent party,
will be detected and duly remedied by the Court, and/or may always, in
any event; be drawn to its attention by any interested party.”[3]For your information and guidance.
May 28, 1993.
[1] 66 SCRA 453 (1975)
[2] L-49396, January 15, 1988 (157 SCRA 200)
[3] (Reiterated in
Monserrate v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 153 [1989]; Heirs of the late
Jesus Tan v. Sales, G. R. No. 53546, June 28, 1992; 210 SCRA 303.