Sharruf v. Bubla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Frank Bubla, a non-resident alien, entered into a written contract with petitioner Samuel S. Sharruf for the performance of theatrical shows by Bubla's troupe at Sharruf's night club and the Manila Grand Opera House. Bubla alleged that Sharruf failed to render an accounting of the gross receipts and to pay the amounts due him under the contract, despite demands. Procedural History: Bubla filed a complaint for accounting against Sharruf. Sharruf filed an answer with a counterclaim but later his counsel withdrew appearance due to inability to contact him. Sharruf failed to appear at pre-trial and subsequent trial dates. The respondent court received Bubla's evidence ex parte and rendered judgment ordering Sharruf to render an accounting, pay sums due, attorney's fees, and costs. The Petition: Petitioner Sharruf filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction, seeking to set aside the respondent court's orders denying his motion for new trial, his motion for reconsideration, and disallowing his appeal. He argued that the orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion, that the decision was void for lack of notice, and that Bubla lacked legal capacity to sue.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for new trial. Whether the respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Bubla. Whether the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 33461 is void for lack of notice to the petitioner. Whether the respondent court erred in disallowing petitioner's appeal.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court found no sufficient reason to grant the writ prayed for.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for new trial: The Court held that the granting or denial of a motion for new trial is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the petitioner's motion was based on mistake and/or excusable negligence but was not supported by an affidavit of merit, which is a requirement under the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the motion was filed more than six months after the rendition of the judgment, exceeding the reglementary period provided for such motions. Therefore, the respondent court committed no error in denying the motion. On Whether the respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Bubla: The Court found this claim to be without merit, stating that it is settled law that a court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of a party either by his voluntary appearance in court demanding affirmative relief or by having him served with summons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Bubla, by filing his complaint as the plaintiff in the civil case, voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent court, and the latter acquired such jurisdiction even if Bubla was a non-resident alien who had never been able to enter the Philippines. On Whether the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 33461 is void for lack of notice to the petitioner: The Court found this claim untenable. The record showed that the petitioner had a registered address in the case, and repeated notices of trial were sent to him there. Moreover, the respondent court, instead of proceeding with the trial on March 6, 1959, reset it for April 23, 1959, and directed Bubla's counsel to exert efforts to notify the petitioner. Despite these efforts and the notice sent to his registered address, the petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date, leading the court to receive Bubla's evidence and render judgment. On Whether the respondent court erred in disallowing petitioner's appeal: The respondent court disallowed the petitioner's appeal from its order of March 14, 1960, on the ground that it was not filed within the reglementary period for appeal. The denial of the motion for new trial became final and executory. The subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period for appeal from the order of denial. Therefore, the disallowance of the appeal was proper.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial due to the lack of an affidavit of merit and the motion being filed beyond the reglementary period. It also upheld the trial court's jurisdiction over the respondent, who initiated the case by filing a complaint, and the validity of the proceedings despite the petitioner's alleged lack of notice, as notices were sent to his registered address and he failed to appear.