G.R. No. L-3788; January 22, 1952
MARCIANO PRINCIPE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ERIA, defendant-appellant. Leoncio Maningas, third party defendant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Marciano Principe filed an action against defendant Antonio Eria to collect a sum of money based on a promissory note signed by Eria and Leoncio Maningas. After summons, Eria petitioned to include Maningas as a co-defendant, but the trial court denied this on April 15, 1948, ruling Eria could be sued alone. Eria filed an amended answer on May 27, 1948. The Clerk of Court issued a notice setting the case for hearing on December 13, 1949. On December 3, 1949, Eria filed a petition for leave to file a third-party complaint against Maningas, which the court granted on December 7, 1949, admitting the complaint and giving Maningas the reglementary period to answer. On December 13, 1949, the scheduled trial date, in the absence of Eria and his counsel, the trial court proceeded with the trial and allowed Principe to present his evidence. Eria’s counsel later filed a “Manifestation” on December 16, 1949, stating he learned of the default, and on December 29, 1949, filed a petition for relief and new trial with affidavits of merit, arguing he believed the admission of the third-party complaint automatically cancelled the December 13 hearing. The trial court denied the petition on January 23, 1950, and denied reconsideration on February 20, 1950. Maningas filed his answer to the third-party complaint only on January 9, 1950.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial on December 13, 1949, in the absence of the defendant and his counsel, and in denying the petition for relief from the order of default.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the trial held on December 13, 1949, was premature and unauthorized because the case was not yet ready for trial. Under Rule 31, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a case is ready for trial and should be included in the trial calendar only upon the filing of the last pleading, i.e., when issues are joined. At the time of the trial, the third-party defendant Maningas had not yet filed his answer to the third-party complaint (filed only on January 9, 1950), so the issues were not fully joined. The trial court could not have validly ordered a separate trial under Rule 32, Section 2, as it did not know what claims, cross-claims, or counterclaims Maningas might assert. Consequently, Eria had a right to believe that the admission of the third-party complaint and the grant of time for Maningas to answer automatically cancelled the December 13 hearing. The orders denying the petition for relief and reconsideration were set aside, and the case was ordered returned to the trial court for a rehearing after all parties are duly notified. No costs.