G.R. No. L-10056; April 30, 1957
MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, JUAN C. ZAMORA and VICENTE TORRALBA LIM, defendants. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., appointed defendant Vicente S. Del Rosario as its branch manager and attorney-in-fact in Cebu. To guarantee his performance, Del Rosario and his co-defendants executed an indemnity agreement in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a complaint to recover various sums of money from the defendants, including unremitted premium balances, shares in losses from bond forfeitures, litigation expenses, and unremitted shares from unreported premiums. Defendants Del Rosario and Zamora filed separate answers, with Del Rosario setting up affirmative defenses and a counterclaim for damages due to alleged unjustified removal. Defendant Lim failed to answer. On the initial hearing date, the defendants and their counsel did not appear, and the plaintiff presented its evidence. The court later reopened the case to allow the defendants to cross-examine and present evidence. After several continuances, on the final hearing date set for June 23, 1953, neither Del Rosario nor his counsel appeared. The plaintiff moved for the case to be deemed submitted for decision. Subsequently, Del Rosario, through new counsel, moved to reopen the case, alleging that his failure to appear was due to a belief that the hearing would not proceed because he had sent an amended answer to his former attorney via airmail, which was delayed. The trial court denied the motion for reopening and rendered judgment against the defendants, ordering them to pay the plaintiff jointly and severally. Only Del Rosario appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to reopen the case to present evidence in support of his defense and counterclaim, based on the claim that his failure to appear was due to accident, mistake, or excusable neglect.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the reopening of the case. The Court held that the motion for reopening, which could be deemed a petition for relief under Rule 38, did not comply with the requirements of the Rule. Specifically, it failed to plead under oath the facts constituting the movant’s good and substantial defense, as required by Section 3, Rule 38. Merely stating that the defendant had a good and valid defense was insufficient. Furthermore, the appellant’s repeated failures to appear on several hearing dates did not support the claim of excusable neglect. The trial court had already been lenient in granting continuances and reopening the case twice to allow the appellant to cross-examine witnesses. Therefore, the denial of the motion to reopen was proper.