Ong v. Fonacier
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Juan Ong filed a suit for a sum of money against Isabelo F. Fonacier, seeking to recover alleged loans totaling P4,210, plus damages and attorney's fees. Fonacier was declared in default but later his default was lifted, and he was allowed to file an answer with a third-party complaint against Fernando Gaite and a counterclaim against Ong. Fonacier alleged that the sums Ong claimed were payments of royalties from mineral claims he owned and that Gaite and Ong owed him a balance on these royalties. Gaite filed an answer to the third-party complaint with a counterclaim, alleging Fonacier owed him a share of royalties. Fonacier later claimed Gaite sold his participation in the royalties to him. Procedural History: Fonacier was declared in default twice. Motions for postponement were filed by Fonacier, with the third motion being denied by the trial court. The trial proceeded in Fonacier's absence, with evidence presented by Ong and Gaite. The trial court rendered a decision ordering Fonacier to pay Ong P4,060 and Gaite P7,333.33, dismissing the third-party complaint. Fonacier's petition to set aside the decision was denied, and his appeal was eventually allowed by the Supreme Court after a writ of mandamus. The case was certified to the Court of Appeals as involving purely questions of law, and subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Fonacier appealed the decision, contending that the lower court erred in trying the case in his absence and in not granting his motion for postponement, thereby violating his constitutional right to be heard. He also argued that the decision was premature due to pending unresolved motions.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial in the absence of the defendant-appellant and in denying his motion for postponement. Whether the decision of the trial court was premature due to the pendency of unresolved motions.
Ruling
The appealed decision and order denying the petition to set it aside are hereby affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proceeding with the trial in the absence of the defendant-appellant and denying the motion for postponement: The Supreme Court held that postponements are matters within the sound discretion of the court. Fonacier's motion for postponement was his third, and the court had already granted his first two. He had two counsels, so the absence of one did not leave him unrepresented. Furthermore, a prior motion for postponement was not acted upon as it was not served on the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that approval of motions for postponement are not to be taken for granted and Fonacier had no reason to assume his third motion would be granted. Therefore, Fonacier was given the right to be heard but failed to appear, and this failure was found to be unjustified by the trial court. On the issue of the decision being premature due to pending unresolved motions: The Supreme Court clarified that issues are joined by the filing of pleadings, not by pending motions. In this case, all parties had filed responsive pleadings, except for plaintiff Ong who had not answered Fonacier's counterclaim. However, the counterclaim was compulsory and based on the same defenses and issues as the answer, thus no answer was needed to join the issues. The Court also noted that Fonacier, by failing to appear at the hearing, failed to prosecute his pending motions. The trial court, by proceeding to decide the case, implicitly denied all pending motions and considered the responsive pleadings as properly filed. Therefore, the issues were joined, and the decision was not premature.
Main Doctrine
The trial court did not err in proceeding with the trial in the absence of the defendant-appellant who was declared in default and whose motion for postponement was denied, as such postponements are within the sound discretion of the court and the defendant had been granted previous postponements and had two counsels. Issues are joined by the filing of pleadings, not by pending motions.