G.R. No. L-11334; May 15, 1959
SALVADOR CRUZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TITA TIRONA MALABAYASBAS, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This is an action to recover a sum of money filed in the Municipal Court of Quezon City. After judgment against the defendants, they appealed to the court of first instance. The case was initially dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to appear at a hearing on July 14, 1955, but the dismissal was later lifted. The case was reset for hearing on December 12, 1955. On that date, only the plaintiff appeared. The defendants and their counsel failed to appear despite receiving notice on November 4, 1955. They filed a motion for postponement on the same date, stating their counsel had to appear in another case in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The trial court denied the motion, noting it was filed at the last moment and not within the reglementary period. As the complaint involved accounting, the court commissioned its clerk of court to receive the plaintiff’s evidence. Subsequently, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for postponement.
2. Whether the trial court erred in commissioning its clerk of court to receive the plaintiff’s evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in admitting certain exhibits claimed to be tampered with.
4. Whether the trial court erred in considering exhibits not formally presented as evidence.

RULING

1. On the denial of the motion for postponement: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. Motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The defendants’ counsel received notice of the hearing more than a month in advance but filed the motion only on the morning of the hearing, failing to comply with the rule requiring service at least three days before the hearing. The excuse offered—that a defendant was busy with military maneuvers and failed to submit the motion earlier—was insufficient. The Court cited Gayon vs. Ubaldo, which upheld the denial of a continuance under similar circumstances, stating that parties cannot assume a motion will be granted and are not deprived of their day in court if they voluntarily fail to appear.
2. On the delegation to the clerk of court: The Supreme Court found no irregularity. Section 2, Rule 34 authorizes the court to designate a commissioner to receive evidence when the trial requires the examination of a long account or when taking an account is necessary for the court’s information. The Court referenced Gayon vs. Ubaldo, where a similar delegation was upheld, noting no error or prejudice was shown from the clerk’s performance.
3. On the admission of exhibits: The claim regarding tampered exhibits involves questions of fact. Since the appeal was taken purely on questions of law, this issue cannot be raised.
4. On exhibits not formally presented: The Court deemed this claim insubstantial, as the decision was based on evidence other than the exhibits in question.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.