G.R. No. L-46401 December 18, 1987
Petra Vda. de Carcallas, et al., petitioners, vs. The Hon. Judge Valeriano Yancha and (Mrs.) Aurea Tojong, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were defendants in a recovery of land case before the Court of First Instance of Bohol. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. On the scheduled date for the presentation of the defendants’ evidence, both petitioners and their counsel failed to appear. The trial court immediately issued an order considering the case submitted for decision. Counsel promptly filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining his absence was due to a sudden asthma attack, and that he arrived in court shortly after 9:00 a.m., only to find the order already issued. The court denied this motion, citing the defendants’ own absence as unjustified. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied after counsel failed to appear at its hearing due to being detained in another branch of the court.
Subsequently, the court rendered an adverse decision. Petitioners filed a timely verified motion for relief from judgment, which the court denied for lack of an accompanying affidavit of merit. Petitioners then refiled the motion with the required affidavit within the reglementary period, but this too was denied. Execution was thereafter ordered.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) denying petitioners’ motions for reconsideration and for relief from judgment, thereby depriving them of their day in court; and (2) rendering a decision that allegedly deviated from the pre-trial stipulations.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition. On the first issue, while the initial order submitting the case for decision was procedurally sound, the subsequent denials constituted a rigid and unjust application of the rules. Counsel’s failure to appear at the initial hearing was due to a legitimate health emergency (an asthma attack), a circumstance beyond his control and not intended to delay proceedings. His immediate filing of a motion for reconsideration demonstrated diligence. The interest of justice demands that litigants be afforded their day in court, and they should not be made to suffer for minor lapses of their counsel, especially where a plausible defense exists.
On the second issue, the Court found the decision problematic as it appeared to have been rendered without strictly adhering to the facts agreed upon during the pre-trial conference. The pre-trial order established that the resolution of the case hinged on proving the validity of a prior donation. The trial court’s decision, rendered without receiving the defendants’ evidence, effectively precluded them from disputing this central issue.
Finally, the Court held that the respondent court erred in denying the refiled motion for relief from judgment, which was accompanied by an affidavit of merit and was filed well within the 60-day period from knowledge of the judgment and the 6-month period from its entry. Given the timely filing and the showing of a meritorious defense, the lower court should have granted the motion and reopened the case. The orders and decision were annulled, and the case was remanded for reception of the defendants’ evidence.