Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > April 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11002 April 17, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ

103 Phil 341:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11002. April 17, 1958.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Ramon B. de los Reyes for Appellant.

Engracio F. Clemeña and Senén S. Ceniza for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTINUANCE AND ADJOURNMENT; AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AS GROUND FOR POSTPONEMENT. — Postponement, particularly those manifestly intended to delay the proceedings, should be discouraged but where a transfer of the hearing to some other time was sought for on reasonable grounds, as when the parties are trying to reach an amicable settlement of their controversy, it behooves the court to grant the same in order to afford the parties opportunity to thresh out their differences out of court.

2. ID.; COURTS FAVOR AND ENCOURAGE LITIGANTS TO SETTLE CONTROVERSIES. — It is a sound policy for the courts to favor and encourage litigants to settle their controversies extra-judicially where same is possible and lawful, not only because it minimizes the expenses and troubles a litigation usually entail, but also due to the fact that in most cases such agreement redounds to the benefit of both parties and results in their mutual satisfaction.


D E C I S I O N


FELIX, J.:


This is an appeal by the Philippine National Bank from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated October 19, 1954, in Civil Case No. 23236, dismissing the complaint filed therein and from the order of November 22, 1954, denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of said order of dismissal. The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On October 8, 1946, Isidoro de la Cruz obtained a loan of P5,000.00 from the Philippine National Bank, payable within 120 days, with interest at 6 per cent per annum and an additional 10 per cent of the amount due as attorney’s fees in case the collection of the indebtedness would be effected through court proceedings. To secure said loan, De la Cruz executed a mortgage in favor of the bank over a certain property situated at Dasmariñas, Cavite. It seems that the mortgagor failed to satisfy his obligation and for this reason the bank foreclosed the mortgage and the property was actually sold at public auction by the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Cavite. The property was awarded to the bank for P5,000.00, it being the highest bid received for the property. As the mortgagee’s total indebtedness reached the sum of P7,879.29 as of January 5, 1953, after deducting P5,000.00 representing the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property, there still remained an unsatisfied balance favor of the bank in the sum of P2,879.29. Thus, on June 22, 1954, the Philippine National Bank filed a complaint against Isidoro de la Cruz praying the Court that defendant be ordered to pay the deficiency of P2,879.29, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from January 6, 1953, until fully paid.

Defendant filed his answer contending that the price of P5,000.00 for which the property was allegedly sold at public auction was too inadequate and unconscionable because the said property was worth far more than defendant’s indebtedness and its sale should be taken to have released him from his obligation. Defendant, therefore, prayed that he be declared relieved of his obligation and that the complaint be dismissed.

The issues having been joined, the hearing of the case was set for October 19, 1954, but on October 18, counsel for defendant filed an urgent motion for postponement, bearing the conformity of counsel for plaintiff, stating among others that there was a chance that the parties could reach an amicable settlement; that for such purpose, they needed some time, and praying that the hearing be postponed until the next calendar of the court. Acting upon said motion, the court a quo issued an order which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When this case was called for hearing this afternoon, the defendant presented an urgent motion for postponement. This motion for postponement being contrary to law and to the Rules of Court, the same is hereby denied;

"And it appearing that the plaintiff in this case consented to this motion without the approval of this Court and for this reason did not appeal this afternoon — and this has been the practice of the Philippine National Bank to be negligent in its duties — this case is hereby dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff, without pronouncements as to costs" (p. 8, Record on Appeal).

Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration asserting that it acceded to the motion for postponement in view of defendant’s intention to settle the case amicably and also of the bank’s policy to give its clients all the opportunity for the easy settlement of their obligations; that there was no intention on the part of plaintiff not to appear at the hearing of the case, but the lawyer personally handling the same suddenly was taken ill on that day. An affidavit of said lawyer to that effect was attached to the motion. Under date of November 2, 1954, the Court denied the motion for lack of merit. From these 2 orders, plaintiff brought the matter to the Court of Appeals, but the case was certified to Us by the latter Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-6 of Republic Act No. 296.

There is no question that the granting or denial of a motion for postponement rests upon the discretion of the court, but this doctrine should not be taken to mean an absolute authority, it being qualified in the sense that the discretion to be so exercised must be sound and reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious. The only issue, therefore, raised by this appeal is whether the lower court, in denying the motion for postponement involved herein, abused such prerogative.

It may be conceded that postponements, particularly those manifestly intended to delay the proceedings, should be discouraged, but where a transfer of the hearing to some other time was sought for on reasonable grounds, as when the parties are trying to reach an amicable settlement of their controversy, it behooves the court to grant the same in order to afford the parties opportunity to thresh out their differences out of court. Indeed, it is a sound policy for the Court to favor and encourage litigants to settle their controversies extra-judicially where same is possible and lawful, not only because it minimizes the expenses and troubles a litigation usually entails, but also due to the fact that in most cases, such agreement redounds to the benefit of both parties and results in their mutual satisfaction. In the case at bar, considering that defendant’s motion for postponement of the hearing was the first and that same was requested obviously to enable the parties to find a common meeting ground wherein the matter in litigation could be settled, We feel that the ends of justice could have been better served if it were allowed. The trial Judge on the other hand, in denying the same, made the pronouncement that the motion thus filed was contrary to law, probably having in mind the provisions of Section 4, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court restricting the postponement of a trial to a period not exceeding one month. It must be noted, however, that although the motion for postponement prayed that the hearing be included in the next calendar of the court, which may exceed the 1-month period provided for by law, it appears that the written conformity of counsel for plaintiff was expressed in the following tenor: "No objection: for 30 days." This remark of counsel for the plaintiff contained in the pleading filed with the Court may be taken as a modification of the prayer so as to specify that the period of postponement so requested shall not exceed 30 days. Thus, the aforementioned motion cannot be held to be violative of the provisions of the Rules of Court. (See Arts. 2029 and 2030, Civil Code.)

Similarly, although a party has no right to presume that a motion for postponement would be granted by the Court to justify his failure to appear on the date of the hearing, yet taking into account the explanation offered by plaintiff which was not controverted, aside from the conclusion We have already arrived at that defendant’s motion should have been allowed, the Court a quo should not have dismissed the case on account of plaintiff’s alleged failure to prosecute.

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are hereby set aside and the case remanded to the lower Court for further proceedings. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 April 16, 1958 - IN RE: CELSO T. OLIVA

    103 Phil 312

  • G.R. Nos. L-10206-08 April 16, 1958 - PHILIPPINES CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT LINES INC. v. EMILIANO AJON, ET AL.

    103 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10419 April 16, 1958 - JULIO PAREJA v. PAZ PAREJA

    103 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-10783 April 16, 1958 - ESTRELLA O. ROCHA v. JUAN B. CORDIS

    103 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-10873 April 16, 1958 - C. N. HODGES v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO

    103 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-11192 April 16, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRlGUEZ

    103 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-11002 April 17, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 341

  • G.R. Nos. L-6106-07 April 18, 1958 - MADRIGAL v. HANSON, ORTH AND TEVENSON

    103 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-9300 April 18, 1958 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO.

    103 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. L-10200 April 18, 1958 - IN RE: DY TIAN SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-10414 April 18, 1958 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. TEODULO M. CRUZ

    103 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-10886 April 18, 1958 - LEONCIA E. STO. DOMINGO v. URBANA STO. DOMINGO

    103 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-11365 April 18, 1958 - JOSE MONTEVERDE v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA

    103 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-11656 April 18, 1958 - MARIA DAVID v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. L-10724 April 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES RABA

    103 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-11323 April 21, 1958 - BENJAMIN GEONANGA v. C. N. HODGES

    103 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-11602 April 21, 1958 - ALFREDO CUADRA v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA

    103 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-8564 April 23, 1958 - FRANCISCO PELAEZ v. LUZON LUMBER COMPANY

    103 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958 - SANTOS EVANGELISTA v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-11185 April 23, 1958 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-11755 April 23, 1958 - FLORENCIO SENO v. FAUSTO PESTOLANTE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-9957 April 20, 1958 - BAYANI SUBIDO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    103 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-10548 April 25, 1958 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO, ET AL. v. FELISA A. AFABLE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-10564 April 25, 1958 - MANDIAN (MANOBA) v. DIONISIO LEONG

    103 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-10631 April 25, 1958 - JOSE GARRIDO v. JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS

    103 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-10749 April 26, 1958 - BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    103 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-10936 April 25, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INDUSTRIAL TEXTILES COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES

    103 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10981 April 25, 1958 - ANACLETO LUISON v. FIDEL A. D. GARCIA

    103 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-9791 April 28, 1958 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

    103 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-10067 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TIN

    103 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-10183 April 28, 1958 - RAQUEL ADORABLE v. IRINEA INACALA

    103 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10214 April 28, 1958 - IN RE: DSNIEL NG TENG LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-10552 April 28, 1958 - ALFREDO ERAUDA, ET AL. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10799 April 28, 1958 - URSULA JOSE DE VILLABONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-10845 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO LUCERO

    103 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-10875 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN S. LAMBINO

    103 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10935 April 28, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-11262 April 28, 1958 - CARMEN R. CASTILLO v. JUAN C. PAJO

    103 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-11381 April 28, 1958 - ATKINS KROLL & CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-11584 April 28, 1958 - MANUEL ARANETA, ET AL. v. COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-12120 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO AGITO

    103 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-12202 April 28, 1958 - FILOMENO DIZON v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-9064-67 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SORIANO L. ALCARAZ

    103 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-10215 April 30, 1958 - ANDRES E. VARELA v. CRISTINA MARAJAS

    103 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-10556 April 30, 1958 - RICARDO GURREA v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

    103 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-10582 April 30, 1958 - CONSTANCIO MANANSALA v. ANTONIO HERAS

    103 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-10718 April 30, 1958 - M. M. DE LOS REYES v. CORONET

    103 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-10792 April 30, 1958 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

    103 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO BUENO

    103 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-11050 April 30, 1958 - CESAR VARGAS v. VICENTE S. TUASON

    103 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-11052 April 30, 1958 - MILAGROS TEJUCO v. E. R. SQUIBB & SON PHILIPPINE CORPORATION

    103 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-11068 April 30, 1958 - J. MARIANO DE SANTOS v. CATALINO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-11135 April 30, 1958 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    103 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-11326 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO MANANGCO

    103 Phil 604

  • G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520 April 30, 1958 - INES PORCIUNCULA v. NICOLAS E. ADAMOS

    103 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-11617 April 30, 1958 - JOSE M. GARCIA v. MANUEL M. MUÑOZ

    103 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-11782 April 30, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO R. VILLAROSA

    103 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-11868 April 30, 1958 - SERGIO G. MARTINEZ v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF LABASON

    103 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. L-12646 April 30, 1958 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE v. RUFINO P. HALILI

    103 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-13066 April 30, 1958 - CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    103 Phil 643