GR L 22418; (April, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22418, April 28, 1969
FELIX LIMON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. (MRS.) ALEJO CANDIDO, PETRONILA CANDIDO, and THE HEIRS OF ALEJO CANDIDO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On July 5, 1963, the initial hearing of Civil Case No. Q-6951 (an appeal from an ejectment decision of the City Court of Caloocan) was set in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Only the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, Felix Limon, appeared. Because Limon himself was absent, his counsel manifested he was not ready for trial. The defendants-appellees moved to dismiss the case. The lower court granted the dismissal, viewing the plaintiff’s absence as indicative of a lack of interest, noting he had been notified of the hearing date since May 23, 1963. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, submitting a medical certificate attesting that his failure to appear was due to sickness. He also argued he had a good cause of action, having prevailed in the inferior court, and that a postponement of the initial hearing was not unreasonable. The lower court denied the motion for reconsideration on July 20, 1963, and a subsequent motion to set aside that denial on August 28, 1963. The plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of the initial hearing (resulting in dismissal) and in denying the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
RULING
Yes, the lower court gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s absence at the initial hearing, despite his counsel’s presence, was not a positive manifestation of lack of interest. The plaintiff, having won in the inferior court and being the party seeking to regain possession of the premises, was the last person who would want to delay the case. His submitted explanation (sickness supported by a medical certificate) was reasonable and should have excused his non-appearance. While the allowance or denial of postponements rests on the court’s sound discretion, such discretion must be exercised to serve the ends of justice and fairness. When no substantial rights are affected and no manifest intent to delay exists, a motion for continuance should be granted. The Court cited precedent that inconsiderate dismissals do not solve court congestion; justice is better served by a brief continuance and a trial on the merits. The order of dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.