Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rule 11: When To File Responsive Pleadings

    Uploaded by

    Hanz Ky
    10 views1 page
    The Supreme Court case Aberca v. Ver addressed whether declaring defendants in default for failing to file an answer after being served by publication violated their right to due process. While the case was pending, the defendants lost their government positions in a revolution. The court approved serving notice by publication but defendants did not file an answer. The Court held that basic rules on service are mandatory and must be strictly followed to avoid violating constitutional due process rights, even though courts have inherent power to control proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Rule 11

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court case Aberca v. Ver addressed whether declaring defendants in default for failing to file an answer after being served by publication violated their right to due process. While the case was pending, the defendants lost their government positions in a revolution. The court approved serving notice by publication but defendants did not file an answer. The Court held that basic rules on service are mandatory and must be strictly followed to avoid violating constitutional due process rights, even though courts have inherent power to control proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views1 page

    Rule 11: When To File Responsive Pleadings

    Uploaded by

    Hanz Ky
    The Supreme Court case Aberca v. Ver addressed whether declaring defendants in default for failing to file an answer after being served by publication violated their right to due process. While the case was pending, the defendants lost their government positions in a revolution. The court approved serving notice by publication but defendants did not file an answer. The Court held that basic rules on service are mandatory and must be strictly followed to avoid violating constitutional due process rights, even though courts have inherent power to control proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Rule 11: When to File Responsive Pleadings

    Aberca v. Ver ( March 14, 2012)

    Facts:
     While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the so-called EDSA revolution took place. As a result, the
    defendants-appellants lost their official positions and were no longer in their respective office addresses as appearing in
    the record. Plaintiffs-appellees’ request was approved to serve the notice to file answer or responsive pleading by
    publication. However, no answer was filed by defendants-appellants within the period stated in the notice.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the constitutional right to procedural due process was properly observed or was
    unacceptably violated when the respondents were declared in default for failing to file their answer
    within the prescribed period.

    Held:
    Yes. The basic rules on modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and
    other papers are mandatory in nature and, therefore, must be strictly observed. The Court is not unaware
    of the inherent power of courts to control its proceedings. Nonetheless, the exercise of such inherent
    power must not violate basic court procedures. More importantly, it must not disregard one’s basic
    constitutional right to procedural due process.

    You might also like