G.R. No. L-17330. June 29, 1963. VALENTINA ROSARIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JUANA ALONZO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees, Valentina and Matilde Rosario, filed an action for partition, accounting, and damages over two parcels of land in Ilocos Sur. They claimed the properties belonged to the conjugal partnership of their late father, Hilario Rosario, and his second wife, defendant Juana Alonzo. The defendants-appellants, including Alonzo and the Manzanos, countered that the first parcel was purchased with their own inherited funds and the second was acquired through occupation and homestead, asserting ownership through over twenty years of possession and tax payment. They argued Hilario Rosario was blind for decades and could not have furnished the purchase money, and that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
After submitting a partial agreed statement of facts, the case was set for hearing on March 18, 1955. The defendants and their counsel failed to appear. The plaintiffs then presented their exhibits and rested their case. The trial court subsequently rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed motions for reconsideration and to set aside the judgment, pleading that their counsel’s failure to appear was due to forgetfulness and oversight, but these motions were denied for lack of supporting affidavits of merit as required by the rules.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ motions to set aside the judgment due to their counsel’s failure to appear at the hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s orders, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that since the defendants had already filed their Answer to the complaint, they were not in default; the judgment was rendered after ex parte presentation of evidence due to their non-appearance. The legal issue centered on the propriety of denying relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
The Court held that the defendants’ motions, while sworn to by their attorney, were fatally defective for not complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 3, Rule 38. This rule explicitly requires that a petition for relief must be accompanied by affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and must detail the facts constituting the petitioner’s substantial defense. The defendants’ mere allegation of their counsel’s “forgetfulness and oversight,” without a supporting affidavit of merit demonstrating the facts of a valid defense they could prove, was insufficient. The trial court’s strict adherence to procedural rules was justified to ensure orderly administration of justice and prevent delay. The failure to substantiate their claim of excusable negligence and a meritorious defense barred the defendants from obtaining relief from the judgment.