G.R. No. 48109 ; September 7, 1942
NATALIA BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO CABRERA, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, and CIRILO MAPA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Natalia Beltran obtained a favorable money judgment against respondent Cirilo Mapa from the Municipal Court of Manila on November 7, 1940. On November 16, 1940, Mapa filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, alleging the judgment was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The respondent court granted this motion in an order dated December 28, 1940. On January 20, 1941, Beltran moved to set aside this order and to execute the original judgment. The court denied her motions and scheduled a new trial for February 8, 1941. On that date, Beltran filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court to annul the December 28, 1940 order and to restrain the new trial. Also on February 8, 1941, the respondent judge dismissed Beltran’s complaint for her failure to appear at the scheduled new trial.

ISSUE

1. Whether the municipal court validly granted a new trial.
2. Whether the municipal court validly dismissed the complaint for the plaintiff’s non-appearance at the new trial.

RULING

1. Yes, the order granting a new trial was valid. Rule 4, Section 16 of the Rules of Court authorizes a municipal court to grant a new trial to correct an error or injustice. This provision is a restatement of the inherent power of a court, as held in Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, to amend its process and orders to conform to law and justice while the judgment is still under its control.
2. No, the order dismissing the complaint for non-appearance was invalid and is set aside. The Supreme Court ruled that a new trial granted under these circumstances—predicated on an erroneous appreciation of evidence or application of law—does not require the parties to reintroduce all evidence. It means a new consideration of the evidence already presented and the applicable law to render a new judgment. The presence of parties is not indispensable except for argument, which may be dispensed with. A plaintiff’s non-appearance may merely signify submission of the case for new judgment without further argument. The court failed to specify in its order if additional evidence was needed to clarify points. Consequently, dismissal for non-appearance was improper.
The Court remanded the case to the municipal court for further proceedings, noting that while an appeal to the Court of First Instance was a possible remedy, directing the remand now would avoid further delay.
Separate Opinions:
* Justice Bocobo concurred in the result, agreeing that the purpose of the new trial was reconsideration of existing evidence and law, not new evidence, making dismissal for non-appearance erroneous.
* Justice Paras concurred on the validity of granting a new trial but dissented on setting aside the dismissal. He argued that the new trial legally required the presentation of evidence, the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal, and her non-appearance justified dismissal, which merely confirmed the court’s prior action in setting aside the original judgment.