G.R. No. L-16745 December 17, 1966
AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI alias BEN, ET AL., defendants. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI alias BEN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On April 17, 1959, plaintiff-appellee Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte to recover her alleged share in two commercial lots in Iligan City from defendant-appellant Wenceslao Zubiri and Standard Vacuum Oil Co. She claimed the lots were conjugal property and that the defendant had no right over them unless he could prove he was a duly recognized natural child of the late Jesus Zubiri. On May 5, 1959, four pleadings were filed: 1) the appellant’s answer, signed by him without counsel; 2) a Stipulation of Facts, signed by the plaintiff (with counsel) and the defendant (without counsel); 3) a motion to render judgment on the pleadings, signed similarly; and 4) the answer of Standard Vacuum Oil Company. On May 6, 1959, the trial court rendered judgment based on the Stipulation of Facts, which was favorable to the plaintiff as the defendant had admitted practically all allegations. On June 5, 1959, the defendant, now through counsel, filed a petition to set aside the judgment, alleging that the three pleadings (answer, stipulation, motion) were prepared by the plaintiff’s counsel and he was induced to sign them while ill and incapable of understanding the consequences. He also claimed the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by a prior judgment in Special Proceedings No. IL-2, which had adjudicated the properties to him as the sole heir of Jesus Zubiri. The petition included affidavits of merit from the defendant and the Clerk of Court who notarized the pleadings, the latter stating the defendant was sick in bed with fever during the verification. The court set the petition for hearing on August 29, 1959. On August 22, 1959, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion to postpone the hearing due to inability to attend because of current employment commitments. On August 29, 1959, the trial court denied the motion to postpone, proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the defendant’s counsel, heard the plaintiff’s argument, and denied the petition to set aside judgment. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to postpone the hearing and in denying his petition to set aside the judgment based on serious allegations of fraud, unethical conduct by opposing counsel, the defendant’s illness, and a potential bar by a prior judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court. The Court held that while the allowance or denial of postponements and setting aside of orders rests on the sound discretion of the court, such discretion must be exercised prudently and justly to serve the ends of justice and fairness. The motion for postponement was the first such motion, filed a week in advance with proper notice, and based on a reasonable ground (counsel’s contractual commitments). Its denial prevented rather than served justice. The petition to set aside judgment was verified and supported by affidavits, raising serious allegations: that the plaintiff’s counsel, who owed ethical duties to avoid conflicts of interest and communication with an unrepresented opposing party, prepared the pleadings and induced the ill defendant to sign them. The defendant’s answer itself, which contained a total and unqualified admission of the complaint’s allegations and was signed without counsel, should have prompted judicial inquiry. The affidavits indicated the defendant was seriously ill (with fever, an ice cap, and perspiring) during the signing, casting doubt on his mental capacity. Furthermore, the petition raised the ground of res judicata, claiming a prior final judgment (Special Proceedings No. IL-2) adjudicated the properties to the defendant as sole heir, which, if true, would bar the complaint. The trial court’s precipitate denial of the petition without a hearing left these substantial issues undetermined. The Supreme Court revoked the order denying the petition to set aside judgment, granted the petition, and ordered that the complaint be heard on its merits after the defendant is allowed to file his answer or necessary responsive pleading. No costs were awarded.