Saulog v. Custombuilt Manufacturing Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Luciano A. Saulog sued for damages and attorneys' fees after defendant Custombuilt Manufacturing Corporation (Custombuilt) caused the execution sale of properties belonging to Saulog, which were leased to Custombuilt's judgment debtor. These properties, a piano and a rattan furniture set, were sold despite Saulog's third-party claim, after Custombuilt posted a P1,200 bond. Saulog sought P1,200 jointly and severally from Custombuilt, Northwest Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., and the City Sheriff, plus P1,000 in actual and moral damages and P500 for attorneys' fees against Custombuilt, and costs against all defendants. Procedural History: The City Court of Manila rendered an ex-parte judgment against Custombuilt, the City Sheriff, and Northwest Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. due to their failure to appear for trial. This judgment ordered the defendants to pay Saulog P1,200 plus P100 for attorneys' fees and costs. Custombuilt appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. During a pre-trial conference on November 5, 1964, Custombuilt's counsel was present but left before the case was called. Consequently, the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal and revived the city court's judgment. Custombuilt's counsel filed a petition for relief from this order, which was opposed by the plaintiff and subsequently denied by the court. Custombuilt then appealed this denial. The Petition: The appellant, Custombuilt Manufacturing Corporation, sought relief from the Court of First Instance's order dismissing its appeal and reviving the city court's judgment. Custombuilt's counsel argued that his departure from the pre-trial was due to an urgent summons related to his wife's difficult pregnancy, which caused him alarm. However, the court found this explanation insufficient, noting that the counsel's wife did not deliver until five days later and that he failed to communicate his predicament to the court or opposing counsel. Furthermore, the court observed a pattern of non-appearance and lack of interest from Custombuilt, both in the City Court and the Court of First Instance, suggesting a desire to delay the proceedings. The petition essentially questioned the propriety of the denial of the petition for relief from judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance properly dismissed the appeal and revived the City Court's judgment due to the counsel's absence during the pre-trial conference. Whether the counsel's departure due to his wife's labor pains constituted excusable neglect justifying a petition for relief from judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order of November 5, 1964, which dismissed the appeal and revived the city court's judgment. The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the petition for relief from judgment and that the dismissal of the appeal was proper. The judgment of the City Court of Manila, having been revived, was deemed no longer open for reopening.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the dismissal of the appeal was correct under Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. This provision dictates that if an appeal from an inferior court is dismissed for failure to prosecute, the judgment of said inferior court is deemed revived and remanded for execution. While Section 2, Rule 20 provides that a party failing to appear at pre-trial may be non-suited or defaulted, this remedy is not exclusive. In an appellate context, the failure of the appellant to be present at the pre-trial conference in the Court of First Instance constitutes a failure to prosecute the appeal. Applying the rule in American Insurance Company v. Republic, the Court confirmed that the power to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance at pre-trial also extends to the power to dismiss an appeal under Rule 40. Once the appeal is dismissed and the judgment revived, that judgment cannot be reopened for a discussion on the merits as the appeal process has effectively terminated. On Issue 2: The Court found no excusable neglect to justify the petition for relief. Although counsel claimed he left to attend to his wife who was in labor, the Court noted he failed to exercise the foresight required of a lawyer by failing to inform the judge, clerk, or even opposing counsel of his emergency before leaving. The fact that the wife did not actually deliver the baby until five days later, on November 10, 1964, undermined the claim of a sudden, debilitating emergency. The Court observed a pattern of lack of interest on the part of the appellant, noting that they also failed to appear during the proceedings in the City Court despite notice. Such conduct suggests a desire to delay the disposal of the case rather than a genuine defense. Consequently, the trial court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief for lack of merit.
Main Doctrine
A party's failure to prosecute an appeal, evidenced by non-appearance at mandatory proceedings like pre-trial and a lack of diligence in communicating such absence to the court, constitutes sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the judgment of the inferior court is deemed revived and shall be remanded for execution, as provided under Section 9 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.