G.R. No. L-39652. April 26, 1976.
China Banking Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Victoriano Escolar, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner China Banking Corporation filed a collection case against Victoriano Escolar and others to recover the value of a sight draft and interest under a trust receipt. After pre-trial and the withdrawal of claims against one defendant, the case proceeded against Escolar and Tomas Cua. The trial court initially declared them in default for non-appearance, but later lifted the default order against Escolar. The case underwent multiple postponements.
A hearing was finally set for June 3 and 5, 1968. On June 1, Escolar’s counsel filed an urgent motion for postponement, alleging that his principal witness, Mrs. Norita Cantilla, had just given birth and could not attend. A medical certificate from the attending physician was attached. The trial court, noting the several prior postponements and opposing the plaintiff’s vigorous opposition, denied the motion. It considered the case submitted for decision and later rendered a verdict against Escolar and Cua, holding them jointly and severally liable.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a denial of due process, in denying Escolar’s motion for postponement and proceeding to decide the case without receiving his evidence.

RULING

No. The trial court’s denial of the motion for postponement was a proper exercise of its sound discretion and did not deprive Escolar of due process. The Supreme Court emphasized that a motion for postponement is not a matter of right but addressed to the court’s discretion. The denial was justified under the circumstances due to the history of several prior postponements, which indicated a pattern of delay.
Furthermore, the motion itself was insufficient on its merits to warrant a postponement. The attached medical certificate pertained to the witness, not to Escolar himself, and there was no showing that the testimony of this witness was so indispensable that it could not be presented by other available means or on a subsequent date. Crucially, the motion was not accompanied by an affidavit of merit from Escolar detailing the specific nature of his defense and why it could not be presented without the absent witness. The Court cited established jurisprudence that such omissions render a postponement motion properly deniable.
Finally, the Supreme Court noted that when it granted Escolar an opportunity to demonstrate his defenses by submitting a memorandum, he failed to comply. This failure confirmed that the postponement was merely dilatory. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that due process was violated. The trial court’s judgment was reinstated.