G.R. No. 1797 ; April 25, 1922
FLORENCIO FABILLO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUSEBIO TIONKO and LUIS EGAY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Florencio Fabillo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Surigao. After initial proceedings, the case was set for trial on April 25, 1921, with proper notice to the parties. Defendants Luis Egay and Eusebio Tionko (who was also counsel for the defense) requested a continuance. Egay cited sickness, while Tionko cited his duties as a member of the House of Representatives/Independence Mission requiring his presence in Manila. The trial judge, Hon. Andres Borromeo, considered the motions but ordered the case to proceed on April 30, 1921. The defendants again requested postponement until July via telegram, which Judge Borromeo refused. The trial proceeded in the defendants’ absence, and judgment was rendered against them. They appealed, contending the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the continuance and their subsequent motion for a new trial.

ISSUE

Whether the trial judge committed a reversible error or a clear abuse of discretion in denying the defendants’ motions for continuance and their motion for a new trial.

RULING

No. The judgment is affirmed. The granting or refusal of a motion for continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Its action will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous or a clear abuse of discretion. Here, the trial judges had been extremely patient with the defendants’ efforts to delay the proceedings. Regarding Egay’s excuse of sickness, the mere telegram was insufficient; the fact of illness must be established by a satisfactory sworn statement or physician’s certificate. Regarding Tionko’s excuse of legislative duties, the absence of counsel attending the Legislature is not a sufficient cause for continuance absent a statutory provision. Tionko could have made arrangements for his cases during his absence. The wheels of justice cannot stop because of a legislative session. No reversible error was found.