DUE PROCESS

The essence of due process is to be found in the

reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support' of
one's defense. “To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one
may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.|||

(Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, 80578 (Resolution), [October 7, 1988], 248 PHIL
542-584)

JUDGMENTBY DEFAULT
Section 1, Rule 18 of the old Rules of Court which is the law applicable in the instant case
provides: "Judgment by default — If the defendant fails to answer within the time specified in
these rules, the court shall, upon motion of the plaintiff and proof of such failure, declare the
defendant in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to receive the plaintiff's evidence and
render judgment granting him such relief as the complaint and the facts proven may warrant.
This provision applies where no answer is made to a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
complaint within the period provided in this rule." Favorable relief can be granted only after the
court has ascertained that the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party,
petitioners in this case, warrant the grant of the same. In this sense, the law gives the defaulting
parties some measure of protection because plaintiffs, despite the default of defendants, are still
required to substantiate their allegations in the complaint. The judgment of default against
defendants who have not appeared or filed their answers does not imply a waiver of all their
rights, except their right to be heard and to present evidence to support their allegations.
Otherwise, it would be meaningless to require presentation of evidence if every time the other
party is declared in default, a decision would automatically be rendered in favor of the non-
defaulting party and exactly according to the tenor of his prayer.

According to the Supreme Court, the judgment of default against defendants who have not
appeared or filed their answers does not imply a waiver of all their rights, except
their right to be heard and to present evidence to support their allegations.

(Heirs of Fabela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142546, [August 9, 2001], 414 PHIL 838-857)

PRIMACY OF CONSTITUTION
First and foremost is the Constitution. And the Court is its most valiant guardian with the sacred
duty to nip in the bud any erosion, derogation or diminution of its primacy.

This case, in almost every aspect, involves a constitutional issue — and presents itself as a
moment in the country's history where the Court could, as indeed it was called upon, to lay
down clear and unambiguous positions on the primacy of the Constitution. Instead of seizing
this golden opportunity, and bravely asserting its role as guardian, the Court, speaking through
the majority, has chosen to, once again, retreat and find refuge in technical and procedural
niceties, totally brushing aside the paramount constitutional significance of this case.
(Dissenting opinion of J. Caguioa, De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 , [October 10, 2017])