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-appellant Demetria Flores filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, litigating as a pauper. She sought the return of several properties (including parcels of land, buildings, a warehouse share, a mortgage credit, and 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 one lot before cohabiting with K. Ishiwata and that the rest were acquired through their common effort while living together as husband and wife without marriage. The defendant and the intervenor, the Republic of the Philippines, filed their answers, raising 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 defendant also filed a counterclaim for conservation expenses. After repeated postponements, mostly at the plaintiff’s instance, 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 court granted the motion of the defendant and intervenor and dismissed the case. The plaintiff filed motions for reconsideration, citing her counsel’s excusable neglect as he was attending a university board meeting in Dumaguete and the hearing “slipped off his mind.” 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 failure to appear at the trial and in denying her motions for reconsideration.

RULING

No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The dismissal of an action for the plaintiff’s failure to appear at trial rests upon the sound discretion of the court. Every presumption favors the correctness of the court’s action, and the appellant bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion. The plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, based on counsel’s excusable neglect, were effectively motions for new trial or relief from judgment. These motions were not accompanied by the required affidavits of merit, a basis upon which the court could have declined to entertain them. Even waiving this requirement, the reason given was insufficient. 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 appellees cited a prior Supreme Court case (Demetria Flores vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation) where a similar claim by the same plaintiff, predicated on the same ground, was not sustained. The orders of dismissal and denial of reconsideration were affirmed.