GR L 4917; (October, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4917-R. October 31, 1951.
Ireneo M. Santos, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Manuel S. Rustia, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Manuel S. Rustia, filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial in the lower Court of First Instance. This motion was based on the ground of “excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against,” under Rule 37, Section 1(a) of the Rules of Court. He alleged that due to this excusable negligence, he was absent during the trial, resulting in a judgment being rendered against him without his having had an opportunity to present evidence. The plaintiff, Ireneo M. Santos, opposed this motion. The lower court denied the motion for new trial on the ground that it was “without merit and not presented according to the Rules of Court.” The defendant appealed, assigning this denial as error. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court for final determination, stating there were no questions of fact involved.
ISSUE
Whether the question of whether the defendant’s absence during trial was due to excusable negligence is a question of fact or a question of law, and consequently, whether the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the question of whether the defendant’s absence was due to excusable negligence is a mixed question of law and fact. The Court cited Corpus Juris, stating that negligence is a mixed question involving standards of care and compliance, and it becomes a question of law only when the standard is fixed and compliance is proved or disproved by uncontradicted evidence from which only one inference can be made. The Court further held that its resolution in Gabriel Zari vs. Jose R. Santos was squarely applicable, as a motion for new trial on the ground of excusable negligence is substantially similar to a motion for relief under Rule 38. The Court clarified that the motion for new trial was based not only on facts alleged in a prior motion for postponement but also on additional facts and circumstances. Since the determination of excusable negligence involves factual considerations, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.