GR L 9962; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9962; April 11, 1957
Benjamin Macasa, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Cristeto Herrera, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On May 10, 1946, plaintiffs filed a complaint for forcible entry against defendant in the Justice of the Peace Court of Manapla, Negros Occidental. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 406). The case remained pending until October 1954. Multiple postponements occurred, often at the request of defendant’s counsel. On June 29, 1955, when the case was called for resumption of trial, plaintiffs and their attorney failed to appear. Defendant moved to dismiss the case on the ground that it had been pending since 1946, and the court ordered its provisional dismissal. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and new trial, claiming their counsel failed to appear because he was under the impression the hearing was in July and did not receive a copy of the order setting it for June 29; on that morning, he had informed defendant’s counsel of his situation and requested him to ask for a postponement if he was late. The motion was supported by an affidavit of merit. The court denied the motion, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and new trial after provisionally dismissing their case for non-appearance at the hearing.
RULING
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. The plaintiffs’ non-appearance was due to accidental circumstances and excusable mistake—counsel mistakenly believed the hearing was set for July 29 and had not received written notice. The long delay in the case was not attributable to plaintiffs’ fault but to multiple postponements requested by the defendant or made by the court. Plaintiffs had already obtained a favorable judgment in the inferior court and had presented part of their evidence in the Court of First Instance; they had a meritorious interest in avoiding the expense and trouble of restarting the action. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the trial court to set the case for hearing to continue the reception of evidence. Costs were imposed on the appellee.