G.R. No. L-29615 November 15, 1968
LUCIANO A. SAULOG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CUSTOMBUILT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL., defendants, CUSTOMBUILT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Luciano A. Saulog filed a complaint for damages and attorney’s fees in the City Court of Manila against defendants Custombuilt Manufacturing Corporation (Custombuilt), Northwest Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., and the City Sheriff of Manila. The complaint alleged that Custombuilt caused the execution sale of properties (a piano with a stool and a rattan dinner and sala set) belonging to Saulog, which he had leased to Adriano Go, Custombuilt’s judgment debtor in another case. Despite Saulog’s third-party claim, the sale proceeded after Custombuilt posted a bond. On March 3, 1962, the City Court rendered judgment based on plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence against all defendants, who failed to appear despite due notice, ordering them to pay Saulog P1,200 plus P100 attorney’s fees and costs. Custombuilt appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. During the pre-trial on November 5, 1964, Custombuilt’s counsel was present but left the courtroom before the case was called. Upon plaintiff’s motion, the CFI judge dismissed the appeal and revived the city court’s judgment. Custombuilt’s counsel received a copy of the order on November 10 and filed a petition for relief on November 14, which the trial court denied on November 27. Custombuilt appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied defendant’s petition for relief from judgment, which sought to set aside the order dismissing its appeal and reviving the city court’s judgment.

RULING

Yes, the trial court’s denial of the petition for relief is affirmed. The CFI properly dismissed the appeal and revived the city court’s judgment. Custombuilt’s counsel failed to exercise due diligence by leaving the pre-trial without informing the court, despite being present initially. His excuse—that he had to leave due to his wife’s labor pains—was unreasonable, as he could have informed the court or his client, and his wife did not give birth until five days later. This pattern of conduct, including prior failure to appear in the city court despite notice, demonstrates lack of interest and a desire to delay, constituting failure to prosecute under Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal of the appeal rendered the city court’s judgment final and executory, precluding any reopening on the merits. Costs are imposed on appellant Custombuilt.