Title: Improper Allocation of Burden of Proof and Default Judgment in Civil Proceedings
In a civil action where Dam filed a claim against Daeng as defendant, the trial court, at the preliminary hearing, ordered that the defendant bear the burden of proof first. On the scheduled evidentiary hearing date, the defendant failed to appear. The court deemed the defendant in default, proceeded ex parte upon the plaintiff’s motion, and rendered judgment against the defendant.
On appeal, the defendant argued that he was not properly in default because the allocation of the burden of proof was incorrectly determined. In fact, the plaintiff bore the initial burden of proof. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s order requiring the defendant to present evidence first was improper. Since the default resulted from an erroneous judicial direction regarding the burden of proof, the defendant’s absence could not fairly justify a default judgment.
Although civil proceedings generally adhere to the principle of party disposition, the allocation of the burden of proof, when determined by the court, must be legally correct. Where such allocation is flawed and affects procedural fairness, a new trial is warranted in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the appellate judgment ordering a rehearing is legally sound.