GR L 24099; (July, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24099 July 20, 1968
CLOTILDE CORREOS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. LADISLAO VALENZUELA Y PEREZ and EMILIO DIZON, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On June 20, 1962, Exequiel Correos alighted from a passenger jeepney at Plaza Lawton, Manila. Suddenly, another passenger jeepney driven by Ladislao Valenzuela and owned by Emilio Dizon came from behind and bumped the rear of the first jeepney, pinning Correos between the two vehicles. He sustained injuries that caused his death on July 5, 1962. His widow and children filed an action for damages. The defendants filed their answer but failed to appear on the trial date. Consequently, the lower court allowed the plaintiffs to present their evidence before a Deputy Clerk of Court appointed as Commissioner. Based on this evidence, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Valenzuela to pay damages, with Dizon liable in case of Valenzuela’s insolvency. Before the decision’s rendition, the defendants filed an unverified motion to set aside the order authorizing the presentation of evidence before the Commissioner, alleging their counsel was suddenly ill on the trial date and that he had advised them not to appear as he did not expect the presentation to conclude that day. The motion was not accompanied by affidavits of merit. The lower court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court erred in allowing the presentation of evidence for the plaintiffs before a Commissioner.
2. Whether the lower court erred in not finding that the sickness of defendants’ counsel constituted excusable negligence.
3. Whether the lower court erred in not granting the motion for relief from judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
1. The proceedings before the Commissioner were valid and in accordance with current court practice followed in default and similar cases. The rules invoked by appellants refer to contentious cases where both parties are available for trial.
2. The failure of the defendants and their counsel to appear was not excusable. Their own motion averred that the defendants’ failure to appear was due to the advice of their attorney.
3. The denial of the motion for relief from judgment was proper. The motion was filed without any supporting affidavit of merit. It is not enough to allege that the movant has a good defense; the rules require such a motion to be supported by affidavits proving both the grounds relied upon and the merits of the movant’s case, so the court can determine if re-opening the case would serve a useful purpose.