GR L 5429; (February, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5429; February 19, 1953
LOPE SARRREAL, petitioner, vs. BIENVENIDO TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and FELICIANO SAMONTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lope Sarreal filed an action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tanay, Rizal, to recover P1,300 for breach of contract and P200 as attorney’s fees from respondent Feliciano Samonte. The defendant failed to appear at trial, and the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance. After his motion to dismiss was denied, the defendant filed an answer containing a counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the price of logs delivered and for unrealized profits. The plaintiff did not file an answer to this counterclaim and was declared in default. Although the plaintiff later filed an answer (a mere denial) to the counterclaim and moved to set aside the order of default, he did not object to the counterclaim on the ground that it was not presented in the Justice of the Peace Court. The plaintiff’s motions for postponement of the hearing were denied. Neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared at the trial. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and, upon the defendant’s motion, received evidence on the counterclaim, subsequently rendering judgment against the plaintiff on the counterclaim.
ISSUE
1. Whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for postponement and dismissing his complaint for failure to appear.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the defendant’s counterclaim, which was raised for the first time on appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court.
RULING
1. No. The denial of the motion for postponement and the dismissal of the complaint did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Postponements are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The petitioner had no reason to assume his request would be granted and was guilty of carelessness and neglect in failing to appear at the trial.
2. No. The Court of First Instance did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the counterclaim. First, the defendant had no opportunity to present an answer or counterclaim in the Justice of the Peace Court as the trial was held in his absence. Second, the rule limiting issues on appeal to those presented in the inferior court is a procedural right that can be waived. The plaintiff waived this right by failing to raise a timely objection; he answered the counterclaim, moved to set aside the default, and only objected to it almost three months after its filing, which was after he had been declared in default and his complaint dismissed. Lastly, a case appealed from a justice of the peace court is tried de novo, and amendments to pleadings are freely allowed to determine all matters in dispute in a single proceeding. The counterclaim was directly related to the plaintiff’s cause of action, and its admission, absent timely objection, was not an abuse of discretion. The petition was denied.