GR L 13725; (December, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13725, December 12, 1918
RAFAEL REYES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONARDO OSORIO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Plaintiff Rafael Reyes filed an action against defendant Leonardo Osorio for the payment of sums totaling P10,504.80. The defendant, in turn, filed a counterclaim demanding $5,600 from the plaintiff. During the trial on October 29, 1917, after the plaintiff presented his evidence, the defendant’s counsel requested a postponement to present the defense evidence, citing the absence of the defendant who was a witness. The defendant’s counsel also moved that the right to bring a separate action for the recovery of the counterclaim amount be reserved. The trial court denied both requests and proceeded to render judgment, absolving the plaintiff from the counterclaim and ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amounts claimed. The defendant appealed, assigning errors primarily concerning the denial of the postponement and the reservation of the counterclaim.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial and rendering judgment despite the defendant’s absence and request for postponement.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to reserve the right to file a separate action for the counterclaim.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the defendant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for his non-appearance at the trial. Moreover, the evidence on record sufficiently justified the trial court’s judgment. Thus, the trial court did not err in proceeding with the case and rendering judgment.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the counterclaim, being necessarily related to the complaint, must be set up in the same action pursuant to Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Allowing a reservation to file a separate action would deprive the plaintiff of the defense granted under that section. Additionally, under Section 127 of the same Code, a dismissal (or reservation) of a counterclaim is not permissible when, as in this case, the plaintiff has already presented evidence and submitted the case for decision. The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion to avoid injustice to the plaintiff.
The appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.