1) Default in Philippine civil procedure: what it is—and what it is not

In Philippine civil litigation, default is a procedural consequence imposed on a defending party who fails to file an answer (or other responsive pleading allowed by the Rules) within the period prescribed, after valid service of summons. The governing provision is Rule 9, Section 3 of the Rules of Court (as amended).

Default is often misunderstood as a penalty for non-appearance at hearings. It is not. A defendant may appear in court yet still be declared in default for failing to file an answer on time; conversely, a defendant may fail to appear at a hearing without necessarily being “in default” (other remedies apply, such as ex parte presentation of evidence in certain settings, especially at pre-trial).

2) The “ex parte hearing” concept in this context

An ex parte hearing generally refers to a court proceeding conducted in the absence of the other party—typically because that party did not appear despite notice, or because the Rules allow the court to proceed on the applicant’s presentation alone.

In default practice, “ex parte” shows up in two distinct moments:

Ex parte hearing on the motion to declare the defendant in default
- This refers to the hearing (if the court sets one) on the plaintiff’s motion to declare default when the defendant does not appear to oppose.
Ex parte reception of evidence after default is declared
- After the order of default, the court may allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and then render judgment based on the complaint and the evidence.

These are related but legally different stages.

3) The motion to declare in default: prerequisites that must exist before “ex parte” matters

Whether the court conducts a hearing (and whether that hearing becomes ex parte) does not change the basic legal requisites for a valid declaration of default:

A. Valid service of summons (jurisdiction over the person)

A declaration of default presupposes that the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant’s person through proper service of summons (or voluntary appearance). If summons was not validly served, any default order is vulnerable and may be treated as void for lack of due process and jurisdictional defect.

B. Expiration of the time to answer

Under the current civil procedure framework, the defendant is generally given a longer period than under the older rules (commonly 30 calendar days in ordinary civil actions, subject to specific cases and modes of service). Default is proper only after the period to answer lapses—taking into account any event that suspends or alters the running of the period (e.g., certain allowed motions, court-granted extensions, and similar circumstances recognized by the Rules).

C. A motion by the claiming party (plaintiff) with notice, and proof of failure to answer

Default is typically declared upon motion of the claiming party, with notice to the defending party, and proof that the defendant failed to file an answer within the allowed time.

Key point: The plaintiff cannot rely on the defendant’s absence at the hearing alone. The plaintiff must show:

the defendant was properly served with summons, and
the period to answer expired, and
no answer (or allowed responsive pleading) was filed.

4) So what is the legal “effect” of an ex parte hearing on the motion to declare default?

A. An ex parte hearing does not dispense with notice requirements

A motion to declare a defendant in default is litigious in nature because it affects the defendant’s ability to participate in trial. Even if the hearing is conducted ex parte, the defendant must have been served the motion (and any court notice setting it for hearing, if one is issued), consistent with due process.

If the defendant was not served with the motion (or service was defective), an ex parte hearing and resulting default order do not cure the defect. The default order becomes attackable for denial of due process.

B. Defendant’s non-appearance makes the hearing ex parte, but does not automatically mean default must be granted

When a defendant does not appear at the scheduled hearing on the motion, the court may proceed ex parte—but the motion is not granted by mere absence. The court must still confirm that the requisites of default exist.

Practically, courts often require the plaintiff to submit or point to:

proof of service of summons and complaint,
proof of service of the motion,
a computation or explanation that the answer period has expired, and
a certification that no responsive pleading is on record.

C. The court may resolve the motion even without a hearing; “ex parte” may be procedural, not substantive

Modern motion practice places less emphasis on “set hearings” for every motion. Courts may resolve motions based on:

the motion,
proof of service,
any opposition/comment, and
the record.

Thus, an “ex parte hearing” on a default motion is often not essential. The legally significant part is notice and proof, not the label “ex parte.”

D. If the defendant filed an answer (even late) before the court’s declaration, ex parte hearing does not justify default

A recurrent scenario is:

answer period lapses → plaintiff files motion for default → defendant files a belated answer (and sometimes a motion to admit it) → hearing comes, defendant may or may not appear.

Default is proper only if, at the time the court acts, there is no responsive pleading on record that the court will recognize. Courts generally avoid default where an answer is already filed and the issue becomes whether to admit it (especially where no substantial prejudice appears). The ex parte nature of the hearing does not convert a filed answer into “no answer.”

E. Ex parte hearing cannot validate default if the defendant’s failure to answer is excused by a pending matter that suspends the period

If a pleading or motion that the Rules recognize as affecting the time to answer is pending (for example, a motion for bill of particulars, or a permitted motion that suspends the time to answer under the Rules), default is improper. An ex parte hearing does not change that.

5) What happens after default is declared: ex parte evidence and judgment

Once the court issues an order declaring the defendant in default, two core consequences follow:

A. Loss of standing to participate in trial, but not necessarily loss of all notices

A party declared in default loses the right to take part in the trial (e.g., presenting evidence, objecting, cross-examining), subject to the Rules and the court’s control of proceedings. The defaulted party generally remains entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings, particularly those that the Rules require, and to notice of judgment—though the practical extent of notices can be contentious and often depends on the exact procedural posture and the court’s directives.

B. The plaintiff may be required to present evidence ex parte

Rule 9 allows the court to render judgment granting the relief warranted by the pleadings; however, courts commonly require the plaintiff to submit evidence, especially when:

unliquidated damages are claimed,
the relief requires factual proof beyond mere allegations,
the claim involves matters that courts scrutinize closely.

This is where “ex parte hearing” becomes most visible: the plaintiff presents evidence without the defendant’s participation.

C. Default judgment is not a “rubber stamp”

Even in default, the plaintiff must still prove:

the cause of action,
entitlement to relief,
the amount of damages (if not liquidated or otherwise determinable without proof).

Courts may deny or reduce damages or deny relief not supported by evidence, even if the defendant is in default.

6) Due process pressure points: where ex parte hearings often become problematic

Default disputes often turn on record-based, technical questions:

A. Was summons properly served?

Defects in service (wrong address, improper substituted service, failure to comply with requirements for substituted service or service by publication when applicable) can void jurisdiction.

B. Was the motion for default properly served?

A default order is vulnerable if the defendant did not receive proper service of the motion seeking to declare default. The fact that the court held an ex parte hearing does not substitute for service.

C. Was the answer period correctly computed?

Mistakes arise from:

ignoring the longer answer periods under the amended rules,
counting from the wrong date,
failing to account for suspending events or court-granted extensions.

D. Was an answer actually filed but not reflected/considered?

Sometimes the answer is filed but not yet in the record at the time of hearing (especially with e-filing, satellite filing, or docketing delays). Courts generally look to the official record and proof of filing.

7) Remedies of a defendant declared in default (and how “ex parte” affects them)

A defendant declared in default has layered remedies depending on timing:

A. Before judgment: Motion to set aside the order of default

Typically, the defendant must show:

a valid ground such as fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (commonly framed as “FAME”), and
a meritorious defense (often supported by an affidavit of merits and a proposed answer).

If the ex parte hearing and default order happened without proper notice or without valid service of summons, the defendant can argue more fundamentally that the order is void for due process reasons.

B. After judgment: Post-judgment remedies

Depending on the circumstances, the defendant may pursue:

motion for new trial or reconsideration (when available and timely),
appeal (a defaulted defendant may still appeal, typically limited to errors apparent on record and issues like jurisdiction, sufficiency of complaint/evidence, and propriety of relief),
petition for relief (in exceptional situations and within strict timelines),
annulment of judgment (for void judgments or extrinsic fraud, under exceptional conditions).

C. Direct attack vs collateral attack

A default order and judgment rooted in lack of jurisdiction (e.g., invalid summons) may be attacked more broadly. By contrast, errors in discretion (e.g., whether to admit a late answer) generally require timely remedies.

8) Distinguishing default from other “ex parte” situations in Philippine procedure

Because “ex parte” can arise in other contexts, it is crucial not to conflate them:

A. Failure to appear at pre-trial (Rule 18)

If the defendant fails to appear at pre-trial, the court may allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and render judgment. This is a separate mechanism from Rule 9 default.

B. Summary Procedure and Small Claims

In certain special procedures, the Rules discourage or disallow the classic default mechanism and instead provide for judgment based on the complaint and evidence when the defendant fails to respond or appear. The label “default” may be inapplicable even though the hearing becomes ex parte.

C. Family law cases involving status of marriage

In actions affecting the status of marriage (e.g., nullity/annulment frameworks governed by specific rules), courts impose special safeguards. The respondent’s failure to answer does not function like ordinary civil default, and ex parte reception of evidence is handled under those special rules and prosecutorial participation requirements.

9) Practical doctrinal takeaway: what “ex parte” actually changes

In a motion to declare the defendant in default, an ex parte hearing generally changes only this:

The defendant does not participate, so the motion may proceed without adversarial testing.

But ex parte does not change the legal standards. The court must still ensure:

jurisdiction through valid summons,
lapse of time to answer,
absence of an answer/recognized responsive pleading,
proper service of the motion and observance of due process.

Where the record shows those requisites, the ex parte hearing often simply becomes the procedural vehicle by which the court confirms compliance and issues the default order. Where the record does not show them, the ex parte hearing becomes a common source of reversible error or a basis to set aside the default.

10) Common litigation positions in hearings on default (including ex parte hearings)

Plaintiff’s typical theory

Summons was properly served.
Answer period lapsed.
No answer filed.
Motion served; defendant failed to oppose or appear.
Default should be declared and plaintiff should be allowed to present evidence ex parte.

Defendant’s typical defenses (often raised later in motions to set aside)

Summons was invalid or service defective.
Period to answer not yet lapsed / miscomputed.
Answer was filed (or should be admitted).
Motion for default not served / defective notice.
There is a meritorious defense and failure to answer was due to excusable negligence or other recognized ground.

11) Bottom line

An ex parte hearing on a motion to declare the defendant in default is generally procedurally permissible when the defendant does not appear despite proper notice. Its effect is limited: it allows the court to hear and resolve the motion without the defendant’s participation. It does not relax the strict requirements of jurisdiction, notice, and proof of failure to answer. Where any of those requirements is missing, the default order is vulnerable—often fatally—regardless of the fact that the hearing proceeded ex parte.