Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > April 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22418 April 28, 1969 - FELIX LIMON v. ALEJO CANDIDO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22418. April 28, 1969.]

FELIX LIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. (MRS.) ALEJO CANDIDO, PETRONILA CANDIDO, and THE HEIRS-OF ALEJO CANDIDO, Defendants-Appellees.

Rizalino B. Escaño, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gonzalo D. David for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT; LACK OF INTEREST TO PROSECUTE, NOT PRESENT IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the lower court, viewing plaintiff’s non-appearance on the day of trial as indicative of lack of interest, dismissed the complaint but the record reveals that plaintiff had already won in the inferior court, that the defendants had been in possession of the premises in question and that the plaintiff’s failure to appear was due to sickness as evidenced by a medical certificate attesting to such fact, the order of dismissal should be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The assumption that plaintiff had lost interest in the case just because of his non-appearance at the initial hearing does not appear to be indubitable nor logical.

2. ID.; CONTINUANCE AND POSTPONEMENT; MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED AND NO INTENTION TO DELAY IS MANIFEST. — It is true that the allowance or denial of motions for postponement and the setting aside of orders previously issued rest principally upon the sound discretion of the court to which the same are addressed; but such discretion should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest, the corresponding motion to transfer the hearing having been filed accordingly, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same. And if such motion is denied because the reason therefor does not appear to be indubitable, a subsequent plea for reconsideration on a valid ground such as that invoked in this case, namely, sickness of the party duly attested by a physician, should not be lightly ignored.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


On July 5, 1963, the day set for the initial hearing of Civil Case No. Q-6951 * of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch V, Quezon City), only the counsel for the plaintiff appeared. And because his client (herein plaintiff-appellant) was not in court that day, counsel manifested before the lower court that he was not ready to go to trial. In view of plaintiff’s absence, counsel for the defendants moved for the dismissal of the case. The lower court, viewing plaintiff’s non-appearance as indicative of lack of interest since" (T)here is actually no reason for plaintiff to be absent from the courtroom now inasmuch as this case is set for today and as early as May 23, 1963 counsel for the plaintiff was notified thereof," found defendants’ motion to dismiss well-taken.

Plaintiff asked for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal on the main ground that his failure to appear on the day of the trial was due to sickness as evidenced by a medical certificate attesting to such fact. Furthermore, he asserted that he had a good cause of action as shown by the fact that he was sustained by the inferior court in his claim. Besides, plaintiff argued that since the trial set for July 5, 1963 was the initial hearing, the postponement sought by his counsel was neither unreasonable nor remotely suggestive of lack of interest. On July 20, 1963 the lower court denied reconsideration. On July 24, 1963 plaintiff again moved to set aside the order denying his motion for reconsideration, reiterating the grounds he alleged in his motion for reconsideration. This was again denied on August 28, 1963. Hence this appeal.

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the lower court gravely abused its discretion in denying counsel for the plaintiff’s motion for continuance of the initial hearing, thus dismissing the case, and in denying later the subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by plaintiff.

Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the lower court that the absence of plaintiff at the initial hearing of the case — though his counsel was there — was a positive "manifestation of lack of interest." If there was anyone who would want an early termination of this case, that would be the plaintiff; he would naturally be the last person to delay this case not only because he had already won in the inferior court but more so because defendants had been in possession of the premises in question up to this time. ** The assumption therefore that plaintiff had lost interest in the case just because of his non-appearance at the initial hearing thereof does not appear to be indubitable nor logical. Besides, the explanation later submitted by plaintiff as to why he was unable to attend does not appear to be unreasonable or so far from the truth that it should not be considered sufficient to excuse plaintiff’s non-appearance.

It is true that the allowance or denial of motions for postponement and the setting aside of orders previously issued rest principally upon the sound discretion of the court to which the same are addressed; but such discretion should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest, the corresponding motion to transfer the hearing having been filed accordingly, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same (Panganiban v. Vda. de Sta. Maria, L-25529, February 29, 1968). And if such motion is denied because the reason therefor does not appear indubitable, a subsequent plea for reconsideration on a valid ground such as that invoked in this case, namely, sickness of the party duly attested by a physician, should not be lightly ignored. At this point it is pertinent to quote what this Court noted in the case of Macasa, Et. Al. v. Herrera, (101 Phil. 44, 48);

"Inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice, do not constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court dockets; while they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to delay, justice is better served by brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., C.J., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J. and Castro, J., on official leave.

Capistrano, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



* Civil Case No. Q-6951 is actually an appeal taken by the defendants from the decision of the City Court of Caloocan in an ejectment case (Case No. 4366) adverse to them.

** Plaintiff had earlier moved for the execution of the judgment of the inferior court pending appeal but the court a quo denied the same on June 5, 1963.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





April-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25924 April 18, 1969 - EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27833 April 18, 1969 - IN RE: ARSENIO GONZALES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-29113 April 18, 1969 - PAZ M. GARCIA v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30052 April 18, 1969 - CAMILO V. PEÑA Y VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-20953 April 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE T. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-26489 April 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ODONCIO TARRAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21492 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUITO TAPITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22452 April 25, 1969 - GEORGE KALITAS v. CATALINO LIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22799 April 25, 1969 - TOMAS L. LANTING v. RESTITUTO GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22945 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARASA HAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23652 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: GO AY KOC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24166 April 25, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24508 April 25, 1969 - CENTRAL SAWMILLS, INC. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25438 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: WILLIAM SAY CHONG HAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25709 April 25, 1969 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26602 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: LIM CHUY TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26416 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: JULIO CHUA LIAN YAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26524 April 25, 1969 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26789 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DICTO ARPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29910 April 25, 1969 - ANTONIO FAVIS v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20122 April 28, 1969 - FELICIANO A. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20268 April 28, 1969 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24163 April 28, 1969 - REGINO B. ARO v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24813 April 28, 1969 - HERMENEGILDO SERAFICA v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25437 April 28, 1969 - IN RE: YAP EK SIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27347 April 28, 1969 - JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ALFREDO FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27588 April 28, 1969 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28805 April 28, 1969 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION SUPERVISORS’ UNION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29930 April 28, 1969 - BENITO ARTUYO v. FRANCISCO GONZALVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20374 April 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SYLVIA ABONITALLA DE RAVIDAS

  • G.R. No. L-21483 April 28, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22418 April 28, 1969 - FELIX LIMON v. ALEJO CANDIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22012 April 28, 1969 - OTILLA SEVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23282 April 28, 1969 - FELIPE GANOB, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS RAMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22587 April 28, 1969 - RUFINO BUENO, ET AL. v. MATEO H. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28747 April 28, 1969 - PAZ M. GARCIA v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21690 April 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO PUJINIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22341 April 29, 1969 - JOSE RAMOS v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23973 April 29, 1969 - CIPRIANO VERASTIQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25094 April 29, 1969 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25883 April 29, 1969 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CALTEX DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19906 April 30, 1969 - STERLING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. FARBENFABRIKEN BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22382 April 30, 1969 - REPUBLIC MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-24273 April 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO FIGUEROA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24507 April 30, 1969 - ARSENIO REYES v. REYNALDO B. CHAVOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24402 April 30, 1969 - PEDRO V. C. ENRIQUEZ v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25604 April 30, 1969 - PAULO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. ABRAJANO & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26679 April 30, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27010 April 30, 1969 - MARLENE DAUDEN-HERNAEZ v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES, ET AL.