G.R. No. L-20887 July 8, 1966
JUAN ONG, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ISABELO FONACIER, defendant and appellant. ISABELO F. FONACIER, third-party plaintiff and appellant, vs. FERNANDO A. GAITE, third-party defendant and appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Juan Ong filed a suit to recover alleged loans totaling P4,210, plus damages and attorney’s fees, from defendant Isabelo Fonacier. Fonacier, after initially being declared in default, filed an answer with a counterclaim against Ong and a third-party complaint against Fernando Gaite. Fonacier alleged he owned iron lode mineral claims and that Ong and Gaite, as his agents/operators, owed him royalty balances. Gaite filed an answer to the third-party complaint with a counterclaim, asserting a 10% share in royalties amounting to P7,333.33 from Fonacier. Fonacier, in his answer to Gaite’s counterclaim, alleged he had bought Gaite’s 10% share but withheld full payment due to Gaite’s failure to deliver a balance of iron ore. After multiple motions and postponements, the trial court proceeded with the hearing on November 5, 1958, in Fonacier’s absence, deeming his telegraphic motion for postponement unjustified. The trial court rendered a decision ordering Fonacier to pay Ong P4,060 and Gaite P7,333.33, with interest from the filing of the action. Fonacier appealed, contesting the denial of his motion for postponement and claiming the decision was premature due to unresolved motions.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Fonacier’s motion for postponement and proceeding with the trial in his absence, thereby violating his right to be heard.
2. Whether the trial court’s decision was premature because issues were not yet joined due to pending unresolved motions.

RULING

1. No. The denial of the motion for postponement was within the trial court’s sound discretion. It was Fonacier’s third motion, his first two having been granted. He had two lawyers, so the absence of one did not leave him without counsel. The motion was not served on the opposing party, making it a “scrap of paper” the court was not bound to consider. Fonacier’s failure to appear was unjustified.
2. No. The issues were joined because all necessary pleadings and responsive pleadings had been filed. Fonacier’s counterclaim against Ong was compulsory and based on the same defenses in his answer, so no separate answer from Ong was required to join issues. Motions are not pleadings; the pendency of unresolved motions does not mean issues are not joined. By deciding the case, the trial court in effect denied the pending motions.
The appealed decision was affirmed, with costs against Fonacier. A subsequent Resolution dated September 13, 1966, amended the dispositive portion to specify that interest on Ong’s award runs from the filing of the complaint (July 11, 1956) and interest on Gaite’s award runs from the filing of his counterclaim (August 10, 1957), excluding the period from July 24, 1959, to January 22, 1962, when the appeal was held in abeyance due to the trial court’s initial refusal to allow it.