GR L 41808; (March, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41808 March 30, 1979
ENGRACIA B. AMBERTI and Minor MARIA TERESA AMBERTI, represented by her mother, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Ninth Division), ROMEO D. ZAMORA and ESTELA LLENADO ZAMORA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against the respondent spouses, alleging libelous intrigue that contributed to the death of Piero Amberti. Respondents, in their answer, denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim for medical fees and damages. After pre-trial, trial commenced. On September 22, 1971, respondents’ counsel filed an urgent motion to postpone the September 23 hearing, citing his hypertension and dizzy spells, supported by a physician’s advice for two weeks’ rest, and noting petitioners’ counsel’s agreement to the postponement. The trial court denied the motion, citing it as the “fourth postponement” and the lack of an attached medical certificate, despite the sworn statement of illness. The court then directed petitioners to present evidence ex parte and rendered a decision in their favor.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for postponement and proceeding with an ex parte presentation of evidence, thereby depriving respondents of their right to present their defense.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision setting aside the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case. The denial of the motion for postponement constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Judicial discretion must be exercised wisely, not capriciously, with a view to substantial justice. The motion was based on counsel’s certified physical disability and was agreed to by the opposing party. There was no manifest intention to delay the proceedings. The Court reiterated that hasty disposals are not a solution to court congestion. When no substantial rights are affected and delay is not manifest, it is sound discretion to grant a reasonable postponement. The right to a full hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence, is fundamental. The trial court’s insistence on proceeding ex parte under these circumstances violated respondents’ right to due process. The case was ordered remanded to the trial court to allow respondents to adduce their evidence.