G.R. No. L-23375 March 30, 1968
FRANCISCA ORPIDA, petitioner, vs. PEDRO PANUELOS and HON. VALERIANO DEL VALLE, Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, 9th Regional District, Branch I, Naga City, respondents.

FACTS

On March 27, 1961, respondent tenant Pedro Panuelos filed a petition for reinstatement and damages with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) in Naga City. He alleged he had been the tenant of a 1.5-hectare landholding in Bagacay, San Jose, Camarines Sur since 1918 and was illegally ejected by petitioner landowner Francisca Orpida in November 1960, who placed Mariano Fullero as the new tenant. The landowner filed an answer on August 1, 1961, denying illegal ejectment and claiming the tenant surrendered the land after the December 1960 harvest, and counterclaimed for undelivered palay shares from 1942 to 1950. After the tenant presented his evidence on September 9, 1963, the reception of the landowner’s evidence was set for December 12, 1963. The landowner failed to appear on that date, leading the court to render a decision on February 12, 1964, ordering the tenant’s reinstatement, the ejectment of Mariano Fullero, and payment of consequential damages to the tenant. The landowner filed a motion for new trial. On June 9, 1964, the CAR judge granted the motion, set aside the February 12 decision, and scheduled a new trial for June 17, 1964. On June 17, at the scheduled hearing, the landowner and his counsel were not present when the case was called. The court, on the tenant’s motion, issued an order setting aside the June 9 order for new trial and reviving the February 12, 1964 decision. The landowner’s counsel arrived after the session and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was set for hearing on July 24, 1964. The landowner’s counsel filed a motion for continuance, but on July 24, the judge denied the motion for reconsideration. The landowner appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent Judge erred in not holding that the tardiness of the petitioner landowner and his counsel on June 17, 1964 was excusable negligence.
2. Whether the respondent Judge erred in ordering, without requiring new evidence, the revival of the judgment rendered on February 12, 1964, which had been previously set aside.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and orders of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The appeal was found to be without merit.
1. The Court held that the landowner’s claim of excusable negligence for tardiness on June 17, 1964, due to travel from Goa and his poor health, was not justified. The record showed the trip from Goa to Naga City took about two hours with early morning buses available, and the tenant and his counsel traveled a greater distance. The landowner had been given many chances and had not exercised due diligence. The respondent Judge did not abuse his discretion in issuing the orders of June 17 and July 24, 1964.
2. The Court held that reviving the February 12, 1964 decision without new evidence was proper. The decision was originally based on evidence presented by the tenant on September 9, 1963. The new trial was granted solely to allow the landowner to present his evidence, but he failed to avail himself of this opportunity. Therefore, he was not deprived of his day in court, and the original evidence stood. The orders of the agrarian court were affirmed.