G.R. No. L-14066; June 30, 1961
VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees, Venancio Castañeda et al., delivered three pieces of machinery and a tractor to defendant-appellant Pastor D. Ago as their capital contribution for a one-year logging partnership starting August 3, 1954, under a written contract. The agreement stipulated profit-sharing and guaranteed the plaintiffs a minimum return. After one month, the tractor was returned. Upon the contract’s expiration, the plaintiffs demanded the return of the remaining machinery and payment of their share of profits, but the appellant refused, instead proposing a renewal. The plaintiffs filed an action for recovery and damages. The appellant, in his answer, claimed the plaintiffs breached the contract by failing to provide necessary spare parts, forcing him to spend substantial sums, and argued the tractor was seized via replevin, not voluntarily returned.
When the case was called for trial, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared. The lower court allowed the plaintiffs to present ex parte evidence and subsequently rendered a decision against the appellant, ordering the return of the machinery or payment of its value, plus accrued monetary awards. The appellant later filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging he did not receive the trial notice because it was sent to a former attorney, Atty. Mariano Yap, due to an internal miscommunication in his counsel’s law firm. This initial motion lacked an affidavit of merit. After the plaintiffs opposed the motion on this ground, the appellant filed an amended motion for reconsideration and new trial months later, supported by affidavits claiming a meritorious defense—that the original contract had been cancelled and superseded by a simple lease agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for reconsideration and amended motion for new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial, finding no error. On procedural grounds, service of the trial notice was validly made upon Atty. Mariano Yap, a member of the law firm of record (Calo, Cupin and Yap) for the appellant. No withdrawal of appearance had been filed by this firm or Atty. Yap at the time of service, making the notification proper under the rules. The appellant’s original motion for reconsideration was fatally defective for two reasons. First, it failed to sufficiently prove the alleged accident or excusable negligence. Second, and decisively, it was not accompanied by the required affidavit of merit demonstrating a good and substantial defense. The appellant only attempted to cure this defect by filing an amended motion with supporting affidavits nearly seven months later, after the plaintiffs had specifically pointed out the deficiency. This delay was unjustified. On the merits of the main appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, as the ex parte evidence presented by the plaintiffs was uncontradicted and fully supported the findings of fact and conclusions of law, entitling them to relief.