G.R. No. L-17029; September 30, 1964
SAMUEL S. SHARRUF, petitioner, vs. FRANK BUBLA, ARSENIO SOLIDUM, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Frank Bubla, a non-resident alien, filed a complaint against petitioner Samuel Sharruf to compel an accounting under a contract for theatrical performances. Sharruf filed an answer with a counterclaim. His counsel later withdrew due to inability to contact him. The court set the case for pre-trial and subsequent hearings, sending notices to Sharruf’s address of record. He failed to appear at these settings. On the final trial date, due to Sharruf’s non-appearance despite efforts to notify him, the court received Bubla’s evidence ex parte, which consisted of a deposition and documentary exhibits. The court rendered judgment ordering Sharruf to render an accounting, pay any amount found due with interest, and pay attorney’s fees.
A copy of the June 9, 1959 decision was served on Sharruf on February 5, 1960. On March 7, 1960, he filed a motion for new trial on grounds of mistake/excusable negligence. The trial court denied this motion, noting it was unsupported by an affidavit of merit and was filed beyond the reglementary period. His motions for reconsideration, which raised new grounds of lack of notice and Bubla’s alleged lack of legal capacity to sue, were also denied. The court subsequently disallowed his appeal and ordered execution.

ISSUE

The primary issues were whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial and in ruling that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the motion for new trial, the Court held its grant or denial is within the trial court’s sound discretion. The motion, based on mistake or excusable negligence, was correctly denied for lack of a supporting affidavit of merit as required by the Rules of Court. Even considering the allegations in his original answer, they did not sufficiently establish such mistake or negligence.
On jurisdiction, the Court ruled the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over Bubla, the plaintiff, by his voluntary act of filing the complaint. A plaintiff submits to the court’s jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief. The claim that the decision was void for lack of notice to Sharruf was untenable. The record showed notices of trial were sent to his address of record. Furthermore, the court had reset the hearing and directed Bubla’s counsel to exert efforts to notify him, which efforts were made, yet Sharruf still failed to appear. His subsequent non-appearance justified the proceedings in absentia. Therefore, the challenged orders were upheld.