G.R. No. L-11724; November 23, 1959
WACK WACK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PETRONILO ARCANGEL and ANTONIO D. BERNARDO, respondents.

FACTS

The case consolidates two petitions for review from Court of Appeals decisions (CA- G.R. No. 15910 -R and CA- G.R. No. 15902 -R) involving the same petitioner, Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc.
1. In CA- G.R. No. 15910 -R (Petronilo Arcangel case): Arcangel, a former employee, filed a money claim against the Club. At the hearing on May 6, 1955, neither the Club nor its counsel of record (the law firm of Balcoff, Poblador and Angel Cruz) appeared despite due notice. The trial court proceeded to receive Arcangel’s evidence and rendered judgment in his favor on May 10, 1955. On May 14, the law office of Juan Chuidian, newly engaged by the Club, filed a petition for relief from judgment, citing misunderstanding and excusable neglect. The petition stated that before the hearing, the Club had decided to replace its counsel. On May 5, Atty. Sayoc of the Chuidian office conferred with Atty. Cruz, but the latter refused to turn over the case files due to unpaid bills. It was allegedly agreed that Atty. Balcoff’s firm, still the counsel of record, would send a representative to the May 6 hearing to ask for postponement. However, no one from either law firm appeared. The trial court denied the petition for relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no justification for the failure to appear.
2. In CA- G.R. No. 15902 -R (Antonio Bernardo case): Bernardo, another former official, filed a similar claim. After about eight postponements, at the hearing on May 12, 1955, no one appeared for the Club, though its counsel of record (Atty. Angel Cruz) was duly notified. The trial court authorized the Deputy Clerk of Court to receive Bernardo’s evidence and later rendered judgment against the Club. On May 14, the Chuidian law office, having filed its appearance on May 12, petitioned for relief. It alleged that the case records were only received on May 11, Atty. Chuidian was out of town, and when an associate arrived at court on May 12, the case had already been called and the Deputy Clerk authorized to receive evidence. The trial court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting there was no justification to anticipate a grant of further postponement.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts’ denial of the petitioner’s petitions for relief from judgment, which were based on grounds of accident, mistake, or excusable neglect.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decisions.
1. On the denial of relief: The Court held that the alleged lack of coordination or misunderstanding between the outgoing and incoming counsel of the petitioner did not constitute excusable negligence. In the Arcangel case, the law firm of Balcoff and Poblador and Angel Cruz remained the counsel of record as of the May 6 hearing. As such, they were under a professional obligation to protect the client’s interests, including appearing at hearings, until formally relieved. The Court could only recognize the counsel of record. Any private arrangement between the client and its attorneys could not dictate court proceedings. The failure to appear was not legally excusable.
2. On the delegation to the Deputy Clerk: The Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the trial court did not act contrary to law or gravely abuse its discretion in authorizing the Deputy Clerk of Court to receive the plaintiff’s evidence in the Bernardo case. The function delegated was merely ministerial—taking testimony and marking exhibits—as there was no opposing counsel present to raise objections requiring judicial discretion. No prejudice to the defendant was caused by this action.
3. On the affidavits of merit: The Court noted, regarding the Bernardo case, that the petition for relief incorporated by reference an unverified amended answer. An affidavit of merit must state facts under oath, not mere conclusions, which was not complied with in this instance.
Therefore, finding no error in the assailed Court of Appeals decisions, the Supreme Court denied the petitions.