Crisologo vs Globe Telecom G.R. No. 167631 December 16, 2005 Facts: Petitioner was an employee of respondent company.

When she was promoted, she became entitled to an executive car. In April 2002, she was separated from the company. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and reinstatement with NLRC which later dismissed the complaint. The Petitioner filed for certiorari with the CA assailing the dismissal. Pending said petition, Respondent filed a civil case with the RTC an action for recovery of possession of the car with application for a writ of replevin with damages docketed as case MC04-2480. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia and forum shopping but was denied by the trial court. Thus, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Petitioner also filed with the CA a motion for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to enjoin proceedings in the replevin case before the trial court. Thereafter, Respondent filed a motion to declare defendant in default in Civil Case No. MC04-2480, which was granted by the trial court. Respondent was thus allowed to present its evidence ex-parte. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of default but it was denied by the trial court. The trial court rendered a judgment by default, declaring respondent having the right of possession over the subject motor

vehicle and ordered the petitioner to pay for damages, attorneys fee, and cost of suit. Petitioner then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which was denied for being the wrong remedy under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Thus, Petitioner filed the present motion for reconsideration, alleging that the filing of said petition is the proper recourse, citing Matute vs. Court of Appeals, wherein it was ruled that a defendant declared in default has the remedy set forth in Sec. 2, par (3) of Rule 41. Issue: WON the Petitioners filing of review on certiorari with the SC citing Matute case is the proper recourse for a judgment by default rendered by the trial court. Ruling: No. The filing of the present petition is clearly not the proper remedy to assail the default judgment rendered by the trial court. The Matute case is of 1969, vintage and pertained to the old Rules of Court and has already been superseded by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Her only recourse then is to file an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appeals under Sec. 2 (a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The petition is reinstated and the case is

REFERRED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.