G.R. No. L-1904; April 16, 1948

C.N. HODGES, petitioner, vs. CONRADO BARRIOS, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and JAMES REDFERN, executor of the estate of the deceased Clifford J. Cooke, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner C.N. Hodges filed a claim for P500 against the estate of Clifford J. Cooke. The hearing was set for September 12, 1947. Before the hearing, the executor’s counsel moved to have Hodges’ deposition taken via written interrogatories instead of orally and to postpone the hearing. This motion was set for hearing on September 6, but Hodges’ counsel received no notice of any court action on the motion. Believing the hearing might be postponed and being unprepared (as the deposition issue was unresolved), Hodges’ counsel, who resided in Iloilo, did not appear in Manila on September 12. The respondent judge dismissed the claim “without prejudice” for non-appearance.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge commit a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the claim for failure of Hodges’ counsel to appear at the hearing?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal. The Court held that the dismissal was unreasonable and unjust. Hodges’ counsel had reason to believe the hearing might not proceed due to the pending motion for postponement, which was filed by the executor and not acted upon by the court. The court knew or should have known that the hearing could not proceed as scheduled because the evidence (deposition) was not ready. The absence of counsel did not retard the case, as the hearing could not have proceeded anyway. Requiring the filing of a new claim would cause unnecessary expense and delay, especially given the small amount involved and the claimant’s residence far from Manila. The dismissal order constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

AI Generated by Armztrong.