Wack Wack Golf and Country Club v. Arcangel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petronilo Arcangel, a former employee of Wack Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc., filed a money claim for overtime services, unenjoyed vacation leave, moral damages, and attorney's fees. In a separate case, Antonino Bernardo, another former official, filed a similar claim for overtime pay and unenjoyed vacation and sick leaves. Procedural History: In both cases, the employer failed to appear at scheduled hearings despite due notice. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the employees. The employer, through new counsel, filed petitions for relief from judgment, citing misunderstanding, mistake, accident, or excusable neglect. These petitions were denied by the trial court. The employer appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the denial, finding no justification for the employer's failure to appear. The employer then filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The employer sought to set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial courts committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their petitions for relief.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the employer's counsel of record to appear at the hearing, due to issues with a newly engaged counsel, constitutes excusable neglect justifying a petition for relief. Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the employer's petition for relief. Whether the delegation of the Deputy Clerk of Court to receive plaintiff's evidence was legal and proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no error in the decisions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the employer's failure to appear did not constitute excusable neglect and that the trial courts did not abuse their discretion in denying the petitions for relief. The delegation of the Deputy Clerk of Court to receive evidence was deemed proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of excusable neglect and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the lack of coordination between the employer's former and new counsel did not constitute excusable neglect. As of the hearing dates, the law firm of Balcoff and Poblador and Angel Cruz were still the counsels of record. They had an obligation to protect the client's interest, including appearing at the hearing, until a formal substitution of attorney was effected. The court could only recognize the counsel of record. Any arrangement between the employer and its counsels was a private concern and could not be a basis for court proceedings to depend on. The Court emphasized that proceedings cannot be made to depend on private arrangements between counsel and client. The failure to coordinate between two law firms cannot be considered a legal excuse or fall within the ambit of excusable negligence to justify relief from a default judgment or a decision rendered in absence of a party. The Court also noted that in one case, the hearing had been postponed multiple times, and in both cases, the new counsel's appearance was solely to seek another postponement, which is not a valid ground for relief. The Court reiterated that motions for postponement must be presented practically and not relied upon the liberality of the court or generosity of the adverse party. On the legality of delegating the Deputy Clerk of Court to receive evidence: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the delegation was proper. The delegation was made in view of the absence of the defendant and its counsel. The function delegated was merely ministerial, involving the taking down of testimony and marking of documentary evidence. There was no occasion for the exercise of judicial discretion, as the opposing party was absent to object. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the defendant by this action. The Court found no error in the trial court's order authorizing the Deputy Clerk of Court to receive the plaintiff's evidence under these circumstances. On the requirement of an affidavit of merit: The Court pointed out the lack of required affidavits of merit to support the petitions for relief. While sworn statements on alleged mistake, accident, and/or excusable negligence were presented, there was a total absence or insufficiency of an affidavit showing facts constituting a valid defense. The affidavit in one case merely stated that the defendant had genuine and bona fide defenses, referring to an amended answer that was not under oath. The Court stressed that affidavits of merit must state facts, not mere conclusions or opinions, to be valid.
Main Doctrine
The failure of counsel of record to appear at a scheduled hearing, even if due to a lack of coordination with a newly engaged counsel, does not constitute excusable neglect justifying a petition for relief, as the counsel of record has an obligation to protect the client's interests until formal substitution is effected. Furthermore, a petition for relief must be supported by a valid affidavit of merit stating facts constituting a defense.