G.R. No. L-13092; May 18, 1960
EMILIA MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. CAMILO BULANADI, respondent.

FACTS

On June 10, 1957, respondent Camilo Bulanadi filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations for reinstatement, reliquidation, and damages against petitioner Emilia Mendoza and Domingo Pelayo. Bulanadi alleged he had been a tenant of Mendoza since the 1952-53 crop year on a parcel of land in Bulacan; that he was illegally dispossessed on June 4, 1957, and Pelayo was placed in possession; and that the crop division was 55-45 in his favor despite him providing labor, work animals, farm implements, and shouldering final harrowing and half of transplanting expenses. Emilia Mendoza, in her answer, denied the material averments, asserted she was a “leaseholder,” claimed Bulanadi was not her tenant but merely a substitute for the original tenant Domingo Pelayo (who was physically incapacitated), and stated the sharing was lawful. She also filed a counterclaim for attorney’s fees. Domingo Pelayo did not file an answer. After two scheduled hearings (August 14 and September 13, 1957) where only Bulanadi and his counsel appeared, the court proceeded to receive Bulanadi’s evidence ex parte. On September 21, 1957, the court rendered a decision ordering Pelayo to vacate, Mendoza to reinstate Bulanadi, and Mendoza to deliver excess palay or its value from crop years 1953-1954 to 1956-1957, plus damages. On October 9, 1957, Mendoza’s counsel filed a motion for new trial, alleging his failure to appear was due to his clerk’s inadvertence in misfiling the hearing notice and that Mendoza had valid defenses: (1) Bulanadi was merely a substitute tenant; (2) she was no longer the owner/possessor at the time of dispossession; and (3) she complied with the Tenancy Law in crop division. The lower court denied the motion for new trial on October 22, 1957, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations committed a reversible error in denying Emilia Mendoza’s motion for new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Agrarian Relations denying the motion for new trial. The granting or denial of a motion for new trial is generally addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The Court found no excusable negligence to justify reopening the case. Counsel’s failure to appear at the second hearing, attributed to his clerk’s mistake, was not excusable because counsel made no inquiries about received notices before his clerk went on vacation, despite having also failed to appear at the first hearing. Furthermore, the Court found Mendoza’s claimed defenses unmeritorious. The claim that Bulanadi was merely a substitute tenant was belied by the finding he had worked as a share tenant since 1953, indicating the alleged temporary incapacity of the original tenant was too prolonged. The new defense that she was no longer the owner/possessor at the time of dispossession contradicted her earlier special defense in her answer that she “is the leaseholder,” weakening her credibility. Her claim of compliance with the Tenancy Law in crop division was deemed a mere conclusion or opinion, which is not valid. Therefore, the denial of the motion for new trial was proper. The preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved, with costs against petitioner.