G.R. No. L-10525; August 29, 1958
ALIPIO N. CASILAN and PURITA GALANARA, petitioners, vs. SANTIAGO GANCAYCO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Alipio N. Casilan and Purita Galanara filed a complaint against respondents, seeking a declaration of ownership over 39 munition quonset huts and damages. The Court of First Instance of Samar initially dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute and rendered judgment on the counterclaim in favor of respondents. The Court of Appeals set aside this decision and remanded the case for new trial. Upon remand, the case was set for hearing on August 26, 1953. Three days before this date, petitioners’ counsel, via telegram, requested a postponement to October 21, 1953, on the ground of ongoing amicable settlement negotiations. The court denied this request. On the day of the hearing, petitioners’ counsel filed a written motion for postponement, alleging the absence of two witnesses: Alfredo Eugenio, who was in Indonesia on government business, and Mercedes T. Casilan, who was ill. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it was not shown there were no other witnesses to prove the facts the absent witnesses would testify to, and that for the ill witness, there was no showing her testimony was material. Upon denial, petitioners’ counsel left the courtroom. The court then dismissed petitioners’ complaint for failure to prosecute and proceeded to receive evidence on respondents’ counterclaim, granting respondents leave to amend their answer to conform to the evidence presented. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Petitioners sought review, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying the postponement and in allowing the amendment of the answer.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for postponement of the trial.
2. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in allowing respondents to amend their answer to conform to the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding no error.
1. On the denial of the motion for postponement: The Court held that motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. The trial court’s denial was proper because: (a) petitioners’ counsel did not state under oath in his motion the nature and materiality of the evidence expected from the absent witnesses, as required by Section 5, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court; (b) for the ill witness, there was no affidavit stating her presence was indispensable and that her illness rendered her non-attendance excusable, as required by Section 6, Rule 31; and (c) there was no showing that the facts to be proven by the absent witnesses could not be adduced through other witnesses. The trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
2. On the amendment of the answer to conform to evidence: The Court held that after the trial court denied the postponement and petitioners’ counsel withdrew from the proceedings, respondents had the right to proceed and prove their counterclaim. The right to amend pleadings to conform to the evidence presented is not affected by the absence of the adverse party. The trial court correctly allowed the amendment.