FACTS:

Roger Tan filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against Roberto Otero, alleging that Otero purchased petroleum products from Tan's Petron outlet on credit amounting to P270,818.01 but failed to settle his obligation despite several demands. After Otero failed to file an answer to the complaint, Tan filed a motion to declare Otero in default. Otero opposed the motion, claiming that he did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint. The motion was scheduled for hearings on various dates but was repeatedly reset. Otero failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, and the court declared him in default. Tan presented his evidence ex parte, including testimonies of his employees and statements of account showing Otero's purchases. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) rendered a decision in favor of Tan. Otero appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), asserting that he was deprived of due process. The RTC affirmed the MTCC's decision. Otero sought reconsideration but was denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the statements of account were inadmissible as they were not properly authenticated. The CA denied Otero's petition, stating that he had waived his defenses by failing to file an answer. Otero's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. Hence, he filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the admissibility of the statements of account and whether Tan was able to prove his allegations.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a defendant who has been declared in default can raise objections regarding the presentation of evidence, specifically the authentication of statements of account.

2. Whether Otero is deemed to have waived any and all defenses against Tan's claim by defaulting in the case.

3. Whether the statements of account presented by Tan were admissible as evidence against Otero.

4. Whether Tan was able to prove the material allegations of his complaint against Otero.

5. Whether the statements of account presented by Tan are admissible as evidence.

RULING:

1. The defendant who has been declared in default is precluded from raising any ground in his appeal from the judgment by default, except the failure of the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of the complaint, the decision being contrary to law, or the amount of judgment being excessive or different in kind from that prayed for. In this case, the defendant claimed that the statements of account presented by the plaintiff were not authenticated, but this objection cannot be raised due to the defendant's default.

2. The Court ruled that Otero, despite being declared in default, has not waived all of his rights except his right to be heard and to present evidence to support his allegations. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs are still required to substantiate their allegations even if the defendant is in default. Therefore, the judgment against Otero must be in accordance with the evidence required by law. The complaint must be dismissed if the evidence presented is insufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff or if the judgment exceeds or differs from what is prayed for in the complaint.

3. The Court ruled that the statements of account presented by Tan were not admissible as evidence against Otero. Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires the authenticity and due execution of a private document to be established before it is received in evidence. Tan failed to authenticate the statements of account and did not present anyone to testify to their genuineness and due execution. As a result, the lower tribunals erred in considering the statements of account in assessing the merits of Tan's complaint.

4. Yes, Tan was able to prove the material allegations of his complaint against Otero. The testimonial evidence presented by Tan's employees, along with the statements of account, were considered credible by the trial court, the RTC, and the CA. The factual findings of the lower courts were binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

5. Even though the statements of account presented by Tan were found to be inadmissible, they were only summaries of Otero's unpaid obligations. The absence of these statements does not disprove Otero's liability. Therefore, their inadmissibility did not affect the court's finding that Tan was able to prove his case.

PRINCIPLES:

• A defendant who fails to file an answer loses his standing in court and forfeits his right to present defenses and cross-examine witnesses.

• A defendant who was declared in default may still appeal from the judgment by default, but only on limited grounds.

• The defendant in default can file a motion to set aside the order of default if his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, and he has meritorious defenses.

• A defendant in default cannot adduce evidence to bolster his defense in the appellate tribunal and can only appeal based on the limited grounds stated above.

• Default does not automatically imply a waiver of all rights, except the right to be heard and to present evidence to support allegations.

• Only legal evidence should be considered against a defendant, even if they are in default.

• The authenticity and due execution of private documents must be established before they can be admitted as evidence.

• Private documents require authentication, unless they fall within specific exceptions.

• Failure to authenticate private documents renders them inadmissible as evidence.

• In civil cases, the burden of proving allegations lies with the party making them, who must establish them by a preponderance of evidence.

• Parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence and not on the weakness of their opponent's defense.

• The extent of relief granted in a case can only be as much as has been alleged and proven with preponderant evidence.

• Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.