G.R. No. L-15124; June 30, 1961
DOMINGA, DOMINADOR, LAURO and PABLO, all surnamed ANTONIO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JOSE RAMOS, LEO NORA RAMOS and NICOLAS FRANCISCO, defendants. NICOLAS FRANCISCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, heirs of Teresa Antonio, filed a complaint for recovery of a 14.76-hectare property against defendants Jose Ramos, Leonora Ramos, and Nicolas Francisco. Only defendant Francisco answered. The other defendants were declared in default. A hearing for the presentation of plaintiffs’ evidence against Francisco was set for August 20, 1956. Neither Francisco nor his counsel appeared, despite counsel having received the notice of hearing by registered mail on March 24, 1956. The trial court proceeded to receive the plaintiffs’ evidence ex parte and subsequently rendered a decision declaring the extra-judicial partition and sale of the property void as to the one-half conjugal share of Teresa Antonio. The court ordered, among other things, the partition of the land between the plaintiffs and Francisco, and the delivery of shares of produce.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant-appellant’s motion for new trial based on grounds of accident, mistake, or excusable negligence for his counsel’s failure to attend the scheduled hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial. The legal logic centers on the standard for granting a new trial under the then Rules of Court, which requires that the failure to appear must be due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. The Court found that counsel’s negligence was not excusable. He admitted receiving a registered court notice six months prior to the hearing but claimed to have lost the envelope without opening it. The Court emphasized the duty of a lawyer to be vigilant and to properly attend to official court communications. Ordinary prudence demanded that counsel, upon receiving and then misplacing such a critical notice, should have inquired with the court clerk or checked the case records within the ample five-month period before the hearing. His failure to do so constituted recklessness, not an excusable oversight. Furthermore, the Court noted that granting a new trial would not substantially alter the outcome, as the evidence established the property was conjugal and the defaulting co-defendants had effectively admitted the plaintiffs’ claims. The appealed orders were affirmed.