THE Sandiganbayan has declared a defendant in a Marcos ill-gotten wealth case in default for failing to file her answer to the complaint despite having been given sufficient time to do it.
In a seven-page resolution promulgated March 20, 2025, the anti-graft court’s Sixth Division granted a motion from plaintiff Republic of the Philippines to declare defendant Josephine Ramirez in default and to allow it to present evidence ex parte, wherein the court will rule based solely on the strength of the said evidence.
A defaulting defendant loses standing in court, meaning she may no longer take part in the trial, present evidence, or cross-examine witnesses unless by permission from the court on due process considerations.
In opposing the government’s motion, Ramirez said she filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars after receiving a copy of the original complaint and another Motion for Bill of Particulars when the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed an Amended Complaint.
She argued that she cannot be expected to file an intelligent and appropriate comment on the plaintiff’s Motion to Declare Defendants in Default since the records of the case are in the Supreme Court, comprising 70 volumes.
Government lawyers countered that the amended complaint did not affect the validity of the summons served on Ramirez or the court’s jurisdiction over her.
Since summons and copies of the complaint were duly served upon her and yet she failed to submit her answer, the plaintiff said she should now be declared in default.
In its resolution, the Sandiganbayan noted that the parties were called to a clarificatory hearing on August 25, 2016, upon which the Republic was given 30 days to provide the court with a list of defendants who were properly served with the summonses with proof of service.
In compliance with the court’s directive, the plaintiff again asked that the defendants who failed to file their answers be declared in default so that it can start presenting evidence ex parte.
In her Comment with Motion, Ramirez reiterated that she needs to access all 70 volumes of case records before she can comment. However, she cannot access the case records while they are with the Supreme Court.
On March 18, 2024, the Sandiganbayan notified all parties that it has finished scanning and printing the entire case records and they may read and photocopy documents they deem necessary. In a resolution dated October 2, 2024, the court directed Ramirez to file her Comment/Opposition within five days from notice.
Ramirez then moved for the dismissal of the case against her on the ground of an absent cause of action.
She pointed out that she was included only as a secondary defendant in addition to the late President Ferdinand Marcos, former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos, late Ambassador Benjamin Romualdez, and corporate defendants Palm Avenue Holding Co. Inc. and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corp. (Palm Companies).
The PCGG alleged that she acted as a dummy or front for Romualdez in the Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) as a former legal counsel of the media company and as a stockholder and director of the Manila World Traders Corp. Ramirez denied the allegations.
She pointed out that on October 18, 2017, the Fifth Division had already issued a pronouncement that the PJI does not form part of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the late Ambassador. Romualdez.
Ramirez said this was enough basis for the court to dismiss the case against her outright for lack of cause of action.
In denying her motion, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that it was a prohibited pleading since it was not based on Rule 15, Section 12 (a) of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court.
“Even under the Rules of Court prior to the effectivity of the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Ramirez’s instant Motion to Dismiss should still be denied for being filed long beyond the period for filing a motion to dismiss,” the court said.
On the other hand, it sustained the plaintiff’s stand that the defendant should be declared in default for failure to file her Answer within the time allowed.
“Defendant Ramirez did not file her Answer to the amended complaint, or later, the Third Amended Complaint, within the time allowed therefor. This is further shown by her manifestation that there is no need for her to file her Answer, indicating that she has no intention of filing the same,” the court noted.
