Bache and Co vs Ruiz GR 32409 27 February 1971

letter addressed to respondent Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search
warrant against petitioners for violation of Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code.
Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon and Arturo Logronio went to CFI with proper documents.
Judge Vivencio Ruiz asked his secretary to take the deposition and when done stenographer read
it to the judge. Logronio took the oath ans was warned by judge that he may be charged with
perjury if found lying. Search warrant was issued and served. Petitioners’ lawyers protested the
search on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the
warrant. The agents nevertheless proceeded with their search which yielded six boxes of
documents. BIR based on the documents seized. Petitioner contend that judged failed to
personally examine the complainant and witnesses.
Issue: Whether or not search warrant is null and void on the ground of no personal examination
of the jusge?
Decision: This cannot be consider a personal examination. If there was an examination at all of
the complainant and his witness, it was the one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court. But, as
stated, the Constitution and the rules require a personal examination by the judge. It was
precisely on account of the intention of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to make
it a duty of the issuing judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses that the
question of how much time would be consumed by the judge in examining them came up before
the Convention, as can be seen from the record of the proceedings quoted above. The reading
of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with the
constitutional mandate and the rule; for by that manner respondent Judge did not have the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial
and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the best
position to conceive. These were important in arriving at a sound inference on the all-important
question of whether or not there was probable cause.
Mangelen vs. Court of Appeals Case Digest

There is a difference between a judgment against a defendant based on evidence presented ex-parte
pursuant to a default order and one based on evidence presented ex-parte and against a defendant who
had filed an answer but who failed to appear at the hearing. In the former, section 5 of Rule 18 provides
that the judgment against the defendant should not exceed the amount or to be different in kind from
that prayed for. In the latter, however, the award may exceed the amount or be different in kind from
the prayed for.

Facts:

Mangelen filed a case for breach of contract against Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. and Pedro Habaluyas.
The Defendants were declared in default for their failure to file an answer within the reglementary
period. The trial court rendered a Decision in favor of plaintiff awarding him exemplary damages which
was not included in his prayer.

Issue:
Was the award of exemplary damages proper?

Held:
No. Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides that judgment entered against a party in default
shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for. Consequently, an award of
exemplary damages should not have been made since it was not even prayed for. Besides, the complaint
is for beach of contract. Exemplary damages may only be awarded therein if private respondents acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. There is no finding whatsoever on
the matter.

There is a difference between a judgment against a defendant based on evidence presented ex-parte
pursuant to a default order and one based on evidence presented ex-parte and against a defendant who
had filed an answer but who failed to appear at the hearing. In the former, section 5 of Rule 18 provides
that the judgment against the defendant should not exceed the amount or to be different in kind from
that prayed for. In the latter, however, the award may exceed the amount or be different in kind from
the prayed for. (Mangelen vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88954, October 29, 1992)