Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

101 Phil 412:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10056. April 30, 1957.]

MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, JUAN C. ZAMORA and VICENTE TORRALBA LIM, Defendants. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

De Santos & Herrera for Appellee.

Pedro Lopez and Epifanio B. Montoro for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOTION FOR RELIEF; REQUISITES OF; WHEN MOVANT NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF. — The "motion for reopening" of the case, which may be deemed for relief under Rule 38, filed by the appellant does not satisfy and comply with the requirements of the Rule, because it is not enough to state in the motion that the defendant had a good and valid defense. The facts constituting the movant’s or petitioner’s good and substantial defense, which he could prove if his petition should be granted must be placed under oath pursuant to section 3, Rule 38. Also appellant’s failure to appear on several dates set for hearing and resumption of hearing of the case does not bolster up his claim that such failure was due to excusable neglect. The trial court was too lenient and generous to the appellant’s motions for continuance. It twice reopened the case to afford the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses who had already testified. Hence, appellant is not entitled to the reopening of the case.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court because the appeal involves only a question of law.

The plaintiff corporation, engaged in the surety and bonding business, appointed the defendant Vicente S. Del Rosario as its branch manager and attorney-in-fact in the province of Cebu (Exhibits A & C). To guarantee the faithful performance of the obligations required of him as branch manager and attorney-in-fact, the said defendant together with his co-defendants Juan C. Zamora and Vicente Torralba Lim executed in favor of the plaintiff an indemnity agreement (Exhibit B).

On 9 February 1950, the plaintiff filed a complaint, amended on 10 July 1951, against the defendants in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover various sums of money, to wit: (1) unremitted balance of the plaintiff’s share in the amount of premiums collected on bonds issued by the defendant Del Rosario — P3,245.16; (2) the latter’s share in the losses due to forfeiture of surety bonds as agreed upon in paragraph 9 of the agreement (Exhibit A) — P9,751.35; (3) unremitted balance of premiums collected by the defendant Del Rosario on insurance — P751.15; (4) litigation expenses incurred as a result of the unauthorized issuance of a surety bond in favor of Aida Young to guarantee the payment of a loan obtained from her by Jose Guevarra — P1,193.02; and (5) unremitted share of the plaintiff in the unreported amount of premiums on one fidelity and two surety bonds mentioned in the complaint and 50 per cent of the gross liability that the plaintiff might incur as a result of the issuance of said three bonds by the defendant Del Rosario, the same to be determined and paid after rendition of account by the said defendant, costs of the suit, and to secure and be granted such other remedy as may be just, equitable and proper.

On 7 August and 6 September 1950 the defendants Vicente S. Del Rosario and Juan C. Zamora, respectively, filed separate answers denying the plaintiff’s claim. In addition, the defendant Del Rosario set up affirmative defenses and counterclaim in the sum of P50,000 as damages suffered by him as a result of his unjustified discharge or removal from office by the plaintiff. Both defendants did not answer the amended complaint. The defendant Vicente Torralba Lim failed to answer the original and amended complaint.

On 5 September, 1952, the first date set for the hearing of the case, the defendants and their respective counsel did not appear notwithstanding due notice. The plaintiff presented its evidence and thereafter submitted the case for decision.

Upon motion of the defendant Zamora, by an order entered on 21 October 1952, the Court reopened the case to afford him and his co- defendants an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and present evidence in their behalf, and set the resumption of the hearing of the case on 27 and 28 November 1952, which was transferred to 16 January and 9 May 1953. On the last mentioned date the defendant Zamora appeared assisted by counsel and the case as to him was heard. Attorney E. G. Gochico also appeared for the defendant Del Rosario and moved for continuance. Again, the hearing as to him was transferred to 14 May 1953. On this date the defendant Del Rosario dated 15 May the case was reopened by order of 27 May 1953. On the last mentioned date the defendant Del Rosario appeared and cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses who had already testified on 5 September 1952 and 9 and 14 May 1953. The case was set for continuance the next day but transferred to 23 June 1953. On this date neither the defendant Del Rosario nor his attorney appeared. Whereupon the plaintiff moved that the case be deemed submitted for decision.

In 14 July 1953 the defendant Del Rosario, represented then by Attorney Pedro Lopez, in a pleading dated 13 July 1953, moved for the reopening of the case alleging that on 16 June 1953 he sent from Cebu to his attorney in Manila, through the Philippine Air Lines, Inc., a letter together with a draft of an amended answer requesting him to file it in court; that believing that by the filing of the said amended answer, the resumption of the hearing of the case on 23 June 1953, could not take place for the reason that the motion to allow the said amended answer had to be considered and decided by the court, he (defendant Del Rosario) did not appear at the resumption of the hearing of the case on said date; that on 11 July 1953 Attorney Pedro Lopez received a letter from the defendant Del Rosario informing him that the letter together with the amended answer had been sent to him five days before the resumption of the trial of the case set for 23 June 1953; that up to that time he (the attorney) had not yet received the envelope containing the letter and the amended answer; that immediately upon receipt of the defendant’s letter on 11 July 1953, the attorney sent one of his clerks to the office of the Philippine Air Lines, Inc. in Manila to inquire about and claim the envelope containing the letter and amended answer of the defendant Del Rosario; that it was only then that he (the attorney) received them; and that the defendant Del Rosario had a good and valid defense. The motion was sworn to by the attorney for the defendant Del Rosario. The plaintiff objected to the motion.

On 29 September 1953, the Court denied the motion for the reopening of the case. The defendant Del Rosario filed a motion for reconsideration of the last order which was not acted upon. On 28 October 1953 the Court rendered judgment —

. . . in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter to pay the former jointly and severally the sum of P14,940.68 with interest at the rate of 6%o per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid.

The defendant, Vicente S. del Rosario, is ordered to submit his accounting on the premiums he has collected on the surety bonds mentioned in paragraph 23 of the complaint under the fifth cause of action, within thirty days from date of the entry of this judgment. With costs against the defendants.

Only the defendant Vicente S. Del Rosario has appealed.

The appellant confines his appeal to assailing the refusal of the trial court to reopen the case to afford him the opportunity to present evidence in support of his defense and to prove his counterclaim. He contends that his failure to appear at the resumption of the hearing of the case on 23 June 1953 was due to accident, mistake or excusable neglect. He says nothing about the judgment on the merits of the case rendered against him and his co-defendants.

The "motion for reopening" of the case, which may be deemed for relief under Rule 38, filed by the attorney for the appellant in the court below, does not satisfy and comply with the requirements of the Rule, because it is not enough to state in the motion sworn to and filed by the attorney that the defendant had a good and valid defense. The facts constituting the movant’s or petitioner’s good and substantial defense, which he could prove if his petition should be granted must be pleaded under oath pursuant to section 3, Rule 38. 1 Also appellant’s failure to appear on several dates set for hearing and resumptions of hearing of the case does not bolster up the claim that such failure was due to excusable neglect. The trial court was too lenient and generous to the appellant’s motions for continuance. It twice reopened the case to afford the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses who had already testified.

The order denying the reopening of the case appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

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

Endnotes:



1. Paz v. Inandan, 75 Phil., 608, 42 Off. Gaz., 174.




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-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452