G.R. No. L-18638; February 28, 1963
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SANTOS DONASCO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint to recover a loan balance secured by a real estate mortgage. The defendants admitted the loan but raised a defense of payment through an offsetting interest amount from a pre-war obligation, along with a counterclaim. The case underwent multiple resettings over several years. When the case was finally called for hearing on September 17, 1958, PNB’s counsel failed to appear. The defendants moved for dismissal, which the trial court granted for the plaintiff’s lack of interest and failure to prosecute.
PNB filed a motion for new trial based on excusable negligence. Its counsel alleged that upon receiving the hearing notice, the bank’s Manila office instructed its Cebu attorneys to handle the trial. Discovering a schedule conflict with hearings in Cebu, these attorneys filed an urgent motion for postponement on September 2, 1958, setting it for hearing on September 6, 1958. They claimed to have furnished a copy to the defendants’ counsel. Having received no notice of the court’s action on their motion by the trial date, they assumed it was granted and did not appear.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed reversible error in dismissing the complaint and denying the motion for new trial, given the circumstances alleged by PNB’s counsel.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s orders. The legal logic centers on procedural compliance and the proper exercise of judicial discretion. The Court found that PNB’s motion for postponement was fatally defective because there was no proof of service on the opposing counsel filed with the motion, as strictly required by Section 6, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. Citing precedent, the Court reiterated that a motion without proof of service is a “useless piece of paper” which the clerk should not receive and the court must not act upon. Consequently, the trial court was correct in not acting on the defective motion and proceeding with the scheduled hearing.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of good faith belief that the motion was granted. The granting of a postponement is discretionary. A movant has no right to assume a motion will be granted and has a duty to appear at the scheduled hearing to proceed if the motion is denied. PNB’s counsel, having received no order granting the postponement, had no basis for their assumption and their failure to appear was therefore inexcusable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.