The following Q&A appears in Prof. Antonio R. Bautista’s Remedial Law Quizzer:1
“Due to personal injuries suffered in a vehicular collision, P sued D for ₱300,000 in actual damages, ₱1 million in moral damages, ₱1 million in exemplary damages and ₱500,000 for attorney’s fees. Assuming that D is declared in default, how much can the court properly award P?”
Prof. Bautista’s suggested answer is “[n]othing, except probably such attorney’s fees as the court may find reasonable. Unliquidated damages cannot be awarded against a party declared in default. (Rule 9, Sec. 3[d])” This answer is anchored on the text of Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which reads as follows:
“(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. – A judgment rendered against a party in default shall neither exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.”2
My suggested answer is that the court can properly award ₱2.8 million in damages to P provided he proves the same. My reading of Section 3(d) is that it bans the award of unliquidated damages only if the court renders a default judgment granting the claimant such relief as his or her pleading may warrant without the reception of evidence. This ban is like the one on award of damages in a judgment on the pleadings. The court may however award damages if the claimant submits evidence to prove the same. 3 A literal reading of Section 3(d) would mean that a defendant in a suit for damages can defeat a meritorious complaint by the simple expedient of not filing an answer and allowing himself to be declared in default.
Hence, in a torts case where the defendant was declared in default or in any case where the plaintiff is seeking damages, the plaintiff should move that he be allowed to present evidence ex parte. It may be said that the reception of evidence would “liquidate” the damages.
- Pp. 84-85 (2004 ed.). ↩︎
- Italics supplied. The ban on an award of unliquidated damages was a new provision added by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. ↩︎
- See also the Minutes of the Rules of Court Revision Committee on 7 October 1987, p. 2; cited in DEAN MARIA CONCEPCION NOCHE, CIVIL PROCEDURE EXPLAINED 400 (2021). See also Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, 485 SCRA 108 (2006), which stated that damages may be awarded under Section 3(d) of Rule 9 if proved. ↩︎
