G.R. No. 48324 March 14, 1990
JOSE AGRAVANTE and JUAN AGRAVANTE, petitioners, vs. JUANA PATRIARCA, substituted by Rosita Ordoñez, and HON. ALFREDO REBUENO, Judge, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, respondents.

FACTS

In 1969, Juana Patriarca filed an action to quiet title against Jose and Juan Agravante. After the case records were destroyed by fire and reconstituted, the court scheduled a pre-trial for February 27, 1978. The defendants’ counsel, Atty. Gil Pacamara, filed a motion for postponement dated February 14 but filed only on February 22, citing his illness. The motion lacked a notice of hearing and was supported only by a photocopy of a medical certificate dated January 30, advising rest for a headache. The trial court denied the motion, noting its procedural defects and the insufficient period from the certificate’s date to the hearing. Neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared at the pre-trial, leading the court to declare them in default and allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. Subsequently, the plaintiff died, and her heirs were substituted. The defendants’ motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this certiorari petition alleging denial of their day in court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and declaring the defendants in default.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The omission of a notice of hearing in the motion for postponement was not a mere formal defect but a fatal procedural flaw. Under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, a motion must specify a hearing date and be served on all parties at least three days in advance, ensuring the adverse party’s right to oppose. The motion here, lacking this notice, was a mere scrap of paper deserving no judicial cognizance. Furthermore, the supporting medical certificate failed to meet the requirement under Rule 22 that an illness must be of such character as to render non-attendance excusable. A headache requiring rest, with a month until the hearing, did not satisfy this standard. The court also correctly acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint, and her subsequent death did not divest the court of jurisdiction; the action survived and properly continued with her heirs. The defendants’ failure to avail of the remedy under Rule 38 to set aside the default judgment, by filing a verified motion showing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence along with an affidavit of merit, precluded relief. Their conduct suggested a dilatory tactic, and the trial court’s orders were upheld as legally sound.