G.R. No. L-83; April 29, 1946
Magdalena Vda. de Lopez and Lydia L. de Tolentino, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Daniel Cabaies, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is an ejectment case that originated in the Municipal Court of Manila, where the defendant obtained a favorable judgment. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of First Instance for a trial de novo. The defendant received notice on August 7, 1945, that the trial was set for August 10, 1945. As the defendant and his counsel could not attend the hearing, they filed a motion for continuance on August 8, 1945. The motion stated two grounds: first, the counsel had a prior commitment to a criminal case set for trial long before this date; second, the defendant was too weak to attend, being a patient at an army hospital, which was supported by a certificate from Second Lieutenant Lucio Contago. A copy of the motion was furnished to the adverse party before filing. The court was not notified of any objection to this motion prior to the trial, and the movant received no notice of its denial. On August 10, 1945, the Court of First Instance of Manila proceeded with the hearing ex parte due to the non-appearance of the defendant and his attorney and decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, assigning several errors, the first being the trial court’s error in proceeding with the hearing despite the motion for continuance and in denying the subsequent motion for new trial.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the ex parte hearing and rendering judgment despite the timely filed motion for continuance based on excusable grounds, thereby entitling the defendant to relief under the rules.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant is entitled to relief under Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, which allows a judgment to be set aside if taken against a party through “excusable negligence.” The Court found that the defendant’s failure to appear was due to excusable negligence. The grounds for the motion for continuance were valid: the counsel had a prior criminal case involving the liberty of a person, and the defendant was certified as too weak to attend court. The motion was filed two days before the scheduled hearing, demonstrating the diligence required of a prudent person. Since no objection was made by the adverse party prior to the trial and no notice of denial was given to the movant, the trial court should not have proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the judgment of the lower court is set aside. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to give the defendant his day in court. The other assigned errors were not discussed as this disposition rendered them moot.