G.R. No. L-4367 May 2, 1952
Generosa Torrefiel and Juan Torrefiel, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Anastacio Toriano, et als., defendants-appellees; Paulina Torrefiel, intervenor and appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, Generosa and Juan Torrefiel, filed an action for partition of a lot on May 19, 1949. The defendants answered with counterclaims. Paulina Torrefiel filed a complaint in intervention claiming compensation for services rendered to the defendants. The case was set for trial on September 20, 1950. On September 16, 1950, the plaintiffs’ and intervenor’s counsel, Attorney Lozada, filed a motion for indefinite postponement, with the conformity of the defendants’ counsel, on the ground that Generosa Torrefiel “would not be able to attend the trial.” Assuming the motion would be granted, only Attorney Lozada was present when the case was called. The court refused to postpone the hearing beyond 10:00 a.m. that day. Attorney Lozada notified the defendants’ counsel, Attorney Carbonel, who rushed to court. Attorney Lozada left to look for his clients and returned with the intervenor at 10:20 a.m., but the case had already been dismissed at 10:10 a.m. due to the non-appearance of the plaintiffs and their counsel. A motion for reconsideration, new trial, and relief was filed, stating Juan Torrefiel was sick and Generosa Torrefiel was “busy.” The lower court denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case and the complaint in intervention for failure of the plaintiffs and their counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, with modification. The matter of adjournments and postponements lies within the sound discretion of the courts, and such discretion will not be interfered with unless a grave abuse is shown. Upon the facts, the lower court’s action was not arbitrary. The adverse party’s conformity to a postponement is not binding on the court. The case was over a year old, and the motion for postponement only stated Generosa Torrefiel “would not be able to attend” without explaining why her attendance was necessary or providing an affidavit as to her illness, as required by Rule 31, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. However, since it did not appear the motion was due to a deliberate desire to delay, or that the action was frivolous (at least as to Juan Torrefiel), and the defendants’ attorney had agreed to the postponement, the interest of justice would be served by a dismissal without prejudice. The order was affirmed with the modification that the dismissal would not be a bar to the filing of a new action and a new complaint in intervention upon the same subject matters. No special finding as to costs.
Separate Opinion (Dissent):
Justice Feria, with whom Justices Bengzon and Bautista Angelo concurred, dissented. The issue of whether the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the case is a question of fact. Therefore, the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court, has appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. The fact that the appeal was erroneously given due course by the Supreme Court does not confer appellate jurisdiction. The case should be certified to the Court of Appeals for proper action.