G.R. No. L-12143; June 30, 1960
NICANOR E. GABRIEL and RICARDO INTERIOR, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CAROLINO MUNSAYAC and RAFAEL DE LEON, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Nicanor E. Gabriel filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Isabela to recover money advanced to defendants Carolino Munsayac and Rafael de Leon related to the construction of the “Pinakawan Bridge Approach” government project. The trial court rendered a decision on August 24, 1955, ordering Munsayac to pay Gabriel P674.35, but also ordering Gabriel to pay de Leon P4,351.92 on his counterclaim. Plaintiff’s counsel received a copy of this decision on September 3, 1955. On September 28, 1955, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, requesting it be calendared for hearing on October 15, 1955, citing counsel’s busy schedule with a House Electoral Tribunal case. Counsel sent a telegram on October 14, 1955, seeking a postponement to October 18, 1955. However, the trial court denied the motion for new trial on October 15, 1955, deeming it pro-forma. Counsel received notice of this denial on October 15, 1955, and on October 19, 1955, filed a notice of appeal from the main decision. On November 11, 1955, defendant Munsayac moved to dismiss the appeal as filed out of time. On December 10, 1955, plaintiff filed a petition for relief, seeking to set aside the October 15, 1955 order denying the new trial. Plaintiff’s counsel explained his failure to argue the motion and to file a supplementary petition detailing alleged errors, attributing it to his electoral case workload, a lost mailing attempt by a housemaid, and his own illness. The trial court denied the petition for relief on October 29, 1956. Plaintiff appealed this denial.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff’s petition for relief from the order that dismissed his motion for new trial as pro-forma.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding no merit in the appeal. The Court held that the order of October 15, 1955, denying the motion for new trial, had become final because the plaintiff failed to file a motion for reconsideration within thirty days from receipt, opting instead to file a notice of appeal. The plaintiff’s attack on the order’s validity via a petition for relief was untimely and unmeritorious. The Court found the counsel’s explanation for failing to file a supplementary petition for new trial—involving a lost mailing by a housemaid—to be an unconvincing afterthought, especially since the petition for relief was filed nearly a month after the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The granting of relief on grounds of mistake or excusable negligence is discretionary with the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed absent a grave abuse of that discretion. No such abuse was found here. The order appealed from was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.