G.R. No. L-21545 November 27, 1968
EUFEMIA RIVERA, administratrix-appellee, vs. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ, claimant-appellant.

FACTS

On November 8, 1948, Pedro B. Cruz filed a claim for P10,000.00, evidenced by two promissory notes, in the settlement proceedings of the estate of Romualdo Rivera (Special Proceedings No. 5990-R). The administrator answered, alleging the claim was the subject of a prior action presumably dismissed upon the claimant’s petition. After periods of inactivity, the current administratrix moved to set the claim for hearing in 1960. The administratrix’s motion to dismiss the claim (on grounds of prior judgment and laches) was denied, and she subsequently filed an amended answer with counter-claims, though the counter-claims were dismissed. The hearing before a Commissioner was initially postponed to July 25, 1961, and again, upon the claimant’s motion, to August 1, 1961. On August 1, 1961, neither the claimant nor her counsel appeared at the hearing. Consequently, the probate court dismissed the claim on the administratrix’s motion. The claimant filed a verified petition for relief from the order of dismissal, attributing the non-appearance to “accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence.” The explanation, supported by an affidavit from counsel’s stenographer (Raul La Madrid), stated that the order setting the August 1 hearing was misplaced in the office and not brought to counsel’s attention until late afternoon on August 1. Counsel also cited anxiety over his wife’s upcoming Caesarean operation as causing him to forget to check his trial dates. An affidavit from Pedro Albea was also submitted, alleging the claimant had a good cause of action. The probate court denied the petition for relief. The claimant appealed the orders of dismissal and denial of relief.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court erred in denying the claimant’s petition for relief from the order of dismissal, based on the grounds of accident, mistake, and/or excusable negligence.

RULING

No, the probate court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders dated August 1 and October 11, 1961. The explanation for the failure to attend the hearing was neither credible nor constitutive of “accident, mistake and/or excusable negligence.” The Court held it is counsel’s duty to maintain an efficient system for tracking court notices, and the negligence of his clerk is imputable to him. The excuse offered was characterized as a “hackneyed and habitual subterfuge.” Furthermore, counsel’s alleged forgetfulness due to anxiety was insufficient; ordinary prudence demanded he check the status of his postponement motion before the originally scheduled hearing date. The fact that counsel traveled to Vigan for a hearing on July 31, despite his wife’s impending operation, undermined his claim of debilitating anxiety. The client must bear the adverse consequences of counsel’s inexcusable negligence.