Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > August 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18373 August 31, 1963 - TEOFILO TALAVERA v. VICTOR MAÑGOBA, ET AL.,:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18373. August 31, 1963.]

TEOFILO TALAVERA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR MAÑGOBA, ET AL., Defendants, VICTOR MAÑGOBA, Defendant-Appellant.

Teofilo B. Talavera in his own behalf as Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amado B. Reyes, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL; COURT’S DISCRETION TO GRANT OR NOT. — Generally, courts are given the discretion to grant or not motion for new trial and appellate courts will not delve into the reasons for the exercise of such discretion.

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN DENIAL OF MOTION MAY BE SET ASIDE. — Where it was shown that the absence of counsel was explained and immediately upon receipt of the decision, a motion for new trial, accompanied by an affidavit of merit, and a medical certificate, were presented, and where it appears that payments had been made by appellant to appellee, it is held that the lower court should have granted the motion for new trial to give appellant the chance to present his evidence.

3. TRIALS; TECHNICALITIES NOT FAVORED. — The dispensation of justice and the vindication of legitimate grievances, should not be barred by technicalities. Had the lower court not resolved the motion for new trial one day before the date set for its hearing, the defendant-appellant could have presented the documents itemized in his brief, to counteract appellant’s claim.


D E C I S I O N


PAREDES, J.:


Instant case had been certified by the Court of Appeals, finding that the issue involved is purely legal in nature.

On December 2, 1957, plaintiff instituted before the CFI of Nueva Ecija, Civil Case No. 2693, for recovery of sum of money against Victor Mañgoba and his counsel Nieves Safiru, allegedly representing the costs of B-Meg Poultry Feeds, which defendants received from plaintiff. Defendants presented separate Answers, wherein they admitted some and denied other allegations in the complaint. Both also interposed separate counterclaims of P1,000.00 each.

In the hearing scheduled on March 10, 1958, neither defendants or their counsel appeared, so that the trial court received plaintiff’s evidence in their absence. On March 18, 1958, a decision was rendered, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The plaintiff declared that the agreement was made between him on the one hand and the defendant Victor Mañgoba and Mrs. Safiru. Nieves Safiru denied in her answer having entered into such an agreement with the plaintiff. And it will be noted that not one of the 16 invoices had been signed by Nieves Safiru. They were all signed either by the defendant Victor Mañgoba or his wife C. B. Mañgoba. It needs more than the uncorroborative testimony of the plaintiff to hold the defendant Nieves Safiru liable on the supposed contract of agency. If it is true that Nieves Safiru had entered into this contract of agency with the plaintiff, at least one invoice would have been signed by her.

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Victor Mañgoba for P2,425.73 with interest at the legal rate from the time of the filing of the complaint and one- half of the costs. The complaint is dismissed as against the defendant Nieves Safiru with 1/2 of the costs against the plaintiff herein."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant claims that the above decision was received by him on March 25, 1958 and the next day (March 26), a Motion for New Trial was presented, wherein it was stated that the failure to appear at the hearing was due to accident or excusable negligence, counsel having been ill of influenza from March 9 to 12. A medical certificate, duly sworn to, was attached to the Motion (Annex A). Appellant further claimed that he had evidence, mostly documentary, to counteract plaintiff’s claim. Counsel for appellant asked the Court to hear the motion for new trial on April 2, 1958. On April 1, 1958, however, one day ahead of the date, the trial court denied said motion, even before the presentation of an opposition thereto, which was only filed on April 7, 1958.

In the appeal brief, appellant contends that in denying the motion for new trial, the court a quo deprived him of his day in court.

Generally, courts are given the discretion to grant or not, motions for new trial and appellate courts will not delve into the reasons for the exercise of such discretion. In this particular case, however, it was shown that the absence of counsel was explained and immediately upon receipt of the decision, motion for new trial, accompanied by an affidavit of merit, and a medical certificate, were presented. Said motion for new trial could well be considered as motion to set aside judgment or one for relief, since it contained allegations purporting to show the presence of good defenses. The ends of justice could have been served more appropriately had the lower court given appellant the chance to present his evidence at least. Furthermore, it appears that payments had been made by appellant to appellee, which were duly received and receipted for. This particular circumstance merits consideration. After all, court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and in this present case, to find out the correct liability of defendant-appellant to appellee. A trial, by which both parties are given the chance to adduce proofs, is the best way to find out such truth. A denial of this chance, would be too technical. The dispensation of justice and the vindication of legitimate grievances, should not be barred by technicalities (Ronquillo v. Marasigan, L-11621, May 21, 1962; Santiago, Et Al., v. Joaquin, L-15237, May 31, 1963). Had not the trial court resolved the motion for new trial, one day before the date set for its hearing, the defendant-appellant could have presented the documents (receipts of payments), itemized in his brief, to counteract appellant’s claim.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and another entered, remanding the case to the court of origin, for the reception of appellant’s evidence and for the rendition of the corresponding decision. No pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, 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






August-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18439 August 21, 1963 - MARIA VDA. DE SOTTO v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20864 August 23, 1963 - ELPIDIO VALENCIA v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17290 August 29, 1963 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. L-18782 August 29, 1963 - BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-15255 August 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN MALAT

  • G.R. No. L-17011 August 30, 1963 - EMMA S. ACENAS, ET AL. v. ANGELA SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17327 August 30, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

  • G.R. No. L-17992 August 30, 1963 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSP. CO., INC. v. EMILIANO DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-18352 August 30, 1963 - AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ETC., ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-19250 August 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO MESSIAS

  • G.R. No. L-16251 August 31, 1963 - ROSA M. VDA. DE ZABALJAURREGUI v. LUZON SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16411 August 31, 1963 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. DOMINGO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. L-17343 August 31, 1963 - ISIDRO SORIENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-17402 August 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-17815 August 31, 1963 - CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, SR., ET AL., v. SEBASTIAN C. PALANCA

  • G.R. No. L-17828 August 31, 1963 - LIGAYA MINA, ET AL., v. ANTONIO PACSON, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17874 August 31, 1963 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17994 August 31, 1963 - FEDERICO BATOLANON, ET AL., v. ROMAN A. LEORENTE

  • G.R. No. L-18011 August 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO LADISLA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18137 August 31, 1963 - ROSELLER T. LIM, ET AL., v. PACITA DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18170 August 31, 1963 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE PHIL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18247 August 31, 1963 - FLORENTINO GALLEGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18277 August 31, 1963 - GUALBERTO CRUZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18334 August 31, 1963 - FILEMON DIONELA, ET AL., v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18373 August 31, 1963 - TEOFILO TALAVERA v. VICTOR MAÑGOBA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18532 August 31, 1963 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NARCISO VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-18667 August 31, 1963 - ANDRES VIVAR v. ANTONIO VIVAR

  • G.R. No. L-20783 August 31, 1963 - EMILIANO M. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS