Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    216 Spouses Barraza v. Campos

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    This case involves a complaint for damages filed by a private respondent against petitioners for using the private respondent's trade name and style without authorization. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint along with a request for a preliminary injunction. However, before resolving the motion to dismiss, the respondent judge declared the petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the required period. The Supreme Court held that declaring the petitioners in default in this way was in contravention of the rules, as the trial court must first resolve a motion to dismiss before a party can be declared in default for failing to file an answer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    216 Spouses Barraza v. Campos

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    59 views1 page
    This case involves a complaint for damages filed by a private respondent against petitioners for using the private respondent's trade name and style without authorization. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint along with a request for a preliminary injunction. However, before resolving the motion to dismiss, the respondent judge declared the petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the required period. The Supreme Court held that declaring the petitioners in default in this way was in contravention of the rules, as the trial court must first resolve a motion to dismiss before a party can be declared in default for failing to file an answer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    216 Spouses Barraza v. Campos.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a complaint for damages filed by a private respondent against petitioners for using the private respondent's trade name and style without authorization. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint along with a request for a preliminary injunction. However, before resolving the motion to dismiss, the respondent judge declared the petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the required period. The Supreme Court held that declaring the petitioners in default in this way was in contravention of the rules, as the trial court must first resolve a motion to dismiss before a party can be declared in default for failing to file an answer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views1 page

    216 Spouses Barraza v. Campos

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    This case involves a complaint for damages filed by a private respondent against petitioners for using the private respondent's trade name and style without authorization. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint along with a request for a preliminary injunction. However, before resolving the motion to dismiss, the respondent judge declared the petitioners in default for failing to file an answer within the required period. The Supreme Court held that declaring the petitioners in default in this way was in contravention of the rules, as the trial court must first resolve a motion to dismiss before a party can be declared in default for failing to file an answer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Galedo, Abegail P.

    216. SPOUSES BARRAZA V. CAMPOS

    PETITIONER : SPOUSES GEORGE BARRAZA and YOLANDA GATCHALIAN-BARRAZA


    RESPONDENT : HON. JUDGE CAMPOS
    DATE : February 28, 1983
    PONENTE : Guerrero, J.
    TOPIC : Rule 11

    FACTS:

     Private respondent filed a complaint for damages based on petitioners use of private respondents
    trade name and style Gatchalian-The house of native lechon and restaurant.
     Petitioners were properly served with summons together with complaint and annexes.
     Petitioners filed Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of time to File answer. However, instead of
    an answer, they filed a Motion to Dismiss complaint together with prayer for prelim. Injunction
     Private respondent moved to declare defendants in default on the ground that defendant failed to
    file an answer within reglementary period allowed by the Rules of Court.

    ISSUE:

    WON the Order of respondent judge declaring defendants in default for failure to file answer
    within reglementary period was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
    discretion

    HELD:

     In this case, without resolving petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, respondent Judge declared
    defendant in default which is clearly in contravention of the rules under Sec. 3, Rule 16. The court
    after hearing may deny/grant the motion or allow amendment of pleading or may defer hearing &
    determination of the motion until trial if ground alleged therein does not appear to be indubitable.
     And it is only from the time that the movant receives notice of denial or deferment of MTD that the
    period within which he shall file his answer is computed which period is prescribed by Rule 11,
    unless Court provides a different period.
     In this case, it appearing that the MTD was filed before expiration of the period for filing
    defendants answer as extended by the court, there was no legal reason for declaring defendant
    in default.

    You might also like