G.R. No. L-17529; July 31, 1962
JOSE V. NERI, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIBRADO C. LIM, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Jose V. Neri sued defendant Librado C. Lim to recover a commission of P17,823.13 for services rendered in consummating a sale and a lease-with-option-to-purchase of Lim’s properties in Masbate to Ramon V. Escaño. Lim’s answer admitted some allegations but denied Neri’s material participation, asserting any obligation was merely moral and setting up a counterclaim. The case was set for hearing on February 2, 1960. Lim failed to appear. Upon Neri’s motion, the court allowed him to present ex parte evidence, leading to a decision on February 22, 1960, awarding Neri the commission with damages and attorney’s fees, while dismissing Lim’s counterclaim. A writ of execution was later issued, leading to the levy of Lim’s property.
Lim filed a motion on June 22, 1960, to set aside the decision and quash the writ, claiming he never received notice of the February 2 hearing and first learned of the judgment only upon receiving a sheriff’s notice of garnishment on May 27, 1960. The trial court denied his motion, finding his claims of lack of notice unmeritorious. Lim appealed directly to the Supreme Court from both the decision and the order denying his motion for relief.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying Librado C. Lim’s motion to set aside the judgment by default, based on his claim of not having received notice of the hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and order, ruling no abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the proper service of notices and the consequences of a party’s negligence. The records showed the notice of the February 2, 1960 hearing was sent to Lim by registered mail on December 4, 1959. It was returned unclaimed despite three postmaster notices sent to and received by him. Similarly, a copy of the February 22 decision was sent by registered mail in early March 1960 and was also returned unclaimed despite three more postmaster notices.
The Court found Lim’s excuse of hospitalization from February 22 to March 29, 1960, unconvincing. The failure to claim mail was a consistent pattern of conduct both before and after his alleged illness. The trial judge correctly noted that Lim displayed an “utter disregard” of ordinary prudence by not authorizing anyone to receive his mail during his confinement. His failure to claim the court’s decision even after his release from the hospital further demonstrated negligence. A motion for relief from judgment requires a showing of a meritorious defense. Lim failed to do so; his answer merely termed his obligation “moral,” which the Court interpreted as an implicit admission of the factual basis of Neri’s claim, which was supported by documentary evidence. Thus, the trial court correctly denied the motion.