G.R. No. L-7778 December 24, 1955
RUBEN BUSTAMANTE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PETE ALFONSO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pete Alfonso, owner of a restaurant, was sued in the Manila municipal court by his cook, Ruben Bustamante, for backpay and attorney’s fees. The municipal court sentenced Alfonso to pay a reduced amount. Alfonso appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Notice of the case’s docketing was served on Alfonso’s counsel on February 10, 1954. Alfonso’s answer, dated February 23, was not filed until February 26. On March 2, Bustamante moved to declare Alfonso in default. The court granted the motion and, after ex parte hearing, rendered judgment on March 18 in favor of Bustamante for the full sum claimed. On March 29, Alfonso filed a verified motion for reconsideration and new trial, explaining that his failure to file the answer on time was due to accident and excusable negligence. He alleged that his counsel prepared the answer on February 23 and instructed his secretary, Aida Manahan, to file it that same day. However, Manahan fell suddenly ill with fever early that afternoon and did not report for work until February 26, at which time she informed the counsel, who then immediately had the answer filed. Alfonso further alleged he had a good and meritorious defense, as evidenced by the municipal court’s substantial reduction of the claim. The motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendant in default and in denying his motion for reconsideration and new trial based on accident and excusable negligence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the appeal meritorious. The Court held that petitions for relief on grounds of accident or excusable negligence are addressed to the court’s sound discretion, exercised in accordance with law. Denial of relief when a case falls within the letter and spirit of the rule constitutes an abuse of discretion. The failure to file the answer on time was excusable. The secretary’s sudden illness, unknown to the attorney, who was justified in assuming the answer had been filed as directed, constituted accident or excusable negligence. The attorney’s omission to immediately verify the filing was mere inadvertence. Furthermore, the verified motion showed Alfonso had a meritorious defense that had previously reduced the claim in the lower court. The interests of justice are better served by allowing the defendant his day in court. The order of default and the judgment were set aside, and the case was remanded to the court below for further proceedings.