G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968
BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN and MARIA CASTOR, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA and FEDERICO STO. TOMAS, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On May 1, 1961, plaintiffs-appellants Benjamin Panganiban and Maria Castor entered into a Contract of Lease over a piece of land in Candaba, Pampanga. On February 5, 1964, they were informed by the Acting Director of Public Works that they had been granted water rights by the Secretary of Public Works, authorizing them to draw water from the Maasim (Bahay Pare) River and to construct an earth dam. Pursuant to this, they constructed an earth dam. On February 9, 1964, defendants-appellees Araceli Vda. de Sta. Maria and Federico Sto. Tomas constructed another earth dam across the same river about a kilometer upstream from the plaintiffs’ dam. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages, alleging defendants refused to remove their dam or release water, causing actual damages. After procedural motions, including a denied motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs, the case was set for hearing on July 7, 1965. On July 3, 1965, plaintiffs’ counsel, with the conformity of defendants’ counsel, filed a motion to postpone the July 7 hearing because he was scheduled to leave abroad and would return on July 10. On July 7, 1965, when the case was called, neither the parties nor their counsel appeared. The lower court then dismissed the complaint and the counterclaim for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Did the lower court err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment?
2. Did the lower court err in dismissing the suit for failure to prosecute?

RULING

1. The first issue cannot be properly raised on appeal because the plaintiffs-appellants failed to specify in their notice of appeal that they were appealing from the order denying their motion for summary judgment, as mandatorily required by Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
2. Yes, the lower court erred in dismissing the suit for failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs had seasonably filed a motion for postponement four days before the hearing, with a valid reason (counsel’s professional trip abroad) and with the conformity of defendants’ counsel. It was the plaintiffs’ first motion exclusively for postponement. Furthermore, neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared on the hearing date. The allowance of postponement rests on the sound discretion of the judge, predicated on serving the ends of justice and fairness. When no substantial rights are affected and no manifest intent to delay exists, such motions should be allowed. The order of dismissal is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. No costs.