GR L 26968; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26968; January 31, 1969
Tropical Building Specialties, Inc., plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jaime Nuevas, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiff Tropical Building Specialties, Inc. sought to recover the price of materials allegedly delivered to defendant Jaime Nuevas from 1961 to 1964. The Municipal Court of Manila rendered a decision sentencing defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P3,815.63 with 12% interest per annum from May 1964, plus P500 as attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The case was set for pre-trial on October 20, 1965. Upon defendant’s motions, the hearing was postponed several times to December 1, 1965, January 13, 1966, February 16, and March 15, on the ground that he was “making efforts at an amicable settlement.” The order of March 15, 1966, which postponed the hearing to April 21, 1966, explicitly stated it was for the “last time” and that “no further postponement will be countenanced by the court.” Defendant failed to appear on April 21, leading the court to authorize plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. However, upon defendant’s motion, the court reconsidered and set the case for hearing on July 7, 1966. On July 6, 1966, defendant filed an unverified petition to transfer the hearing, claiming a prior hearing in a Cavite case on the same date. On July 7, 1966, with defendant absent, the lower court denied his petition and dismissed his appeal, remanding the case to the municipal court for execution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila committed a manifest abuse of discretion in dismissing defendant’s appeal for failure to prosecute.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the appeal. The Court held that postponements of hearings are matters primarily addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose exercise should not be interfered with on appeal in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. The record showed the hearing had been postponed five times on defendant’s motion; the March 15 order gave a final warning; defendant had ample time to address his scheduling conflict but waited until the eve of the hearing; defendant secured postponements by claiming amicable settlement efforts which he never undertook; the record suggested defendant had no valid defense and the appeal was dilatory. The Supreme Court found no such abuse of discretion existed.