G.R. No. L-12741; April 28, 1960
DEMETRIA FLORES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PHILIPPINE ALIEN PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR, defendant-appellee. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor-appellee.

FACTS

On May 10, 1950, plaintiff Demetria Flores filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, litigating as a pauper. She sought the return of properties (specifically, a parcel of land in Victorias, one-half of another lot in Bacolod, one-half of two buildings and a warehouse, one-half of a mortgage, and one-half of a bank deposit) that had been vested in the United States by the Philippine Alien Property Administrator under Vesting Order No. P-620. She claimed she acquired the Victorias lot before cohabiting with K. Ishiwata and that the other properties were acquired through their common effort while living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. The defendant filed an answer, raising affirmative defenses including lack of jurisdiction for damages against the Administrator under the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Philippine Property Act of 1946. The Republic of the Philippines was allowed to intervene. After various pleadings and amendments, the case was set for hearing on June 1, 2, and 3, 1955. On June 1, 1955, neither the plaintiff nor her counsel appeared. The defendant and intervenor moved for dismissal, which the court granted. The plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration, arguing her counsel’s excusable neglect due to his attendance at a university board meeting in Dumaguete City, which caused him to forget the hearing. The court denied these motions. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for her failure to appear at the scheduled hearing and in denying her motions for reconsideration based on her counsel’s claim of excusable neglect.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion. The dismissal of an action for the plaintiff’s failure to appear at trial rests upon the sound discretion of the court. The burden to show abuse of discretion lies with the appellant. The plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, which were effectively motions for new trial or relief from judgment, were not accompanied by affidavits of merit as required, a deficiency the court could have declined to entertain. Even waiving this requirement, the reason given—counsel’s forgetfulness due to a board meeting—did not constitute sufficient excusable neglect. Counsel had received notice of the hearing and should have seasonably asked for a postponement, as had been done on previous occasions. A client is bound by the negligence or mistake of her lawyer. Furthermore, the Court noted a prior ruling (Demetria Flores vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation) where a similar claim by the appellant based on the same grounds was not sustained. Costs were awarded against the appellant.