Victorino v. Lao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs purchased subdivision lots from defendants under installment contracts and made payments. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants did not perform promised subdivision improvements and that the subdivision plan had not been approved by the appropriate land agencies; plaintiffs therefore filed suit seeking rescission of the contracts, refund of payments, and attorney's fees. The trial court received plaintiffs' evidence in the absence of defendants at a hearing held on February 28, 1964, and thereafter rendered judgment on March 5, 1964, rescinding identified contracts, ordering refund of payments with interest, and awarding attorney's fees and costs. Defendants asserted they were not given notice of the hearing and later sought to set aside the decision and obtain a new trial. Procedural History: Defendants filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied for lack of an affidavit of merits. Plaintiffs moved for execution pending appeal. Defendants filed a petition for certiorari to annul the execution order, which this Court dismissed. Defendants perfected a direct appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law (G.R. No. L-24456) without elevating the evidence. Plaintiffs filed their own record on appeal after the trial court declined to require amendment of defendants' record (G.R. No. L-25273). The two appeals were consolidated by order dated January 5, 1966. The Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiffs' judgments but held that the trial court erred in refusing to order the amendment of defendants' record on appeal to include certain material pleadings. The Appeal: Defendants appealed the trial court's decision, claiming they were denied due process as their counsel was not notified of the hearing set for February 28, 1964. They argued that the trial court relied solely on the clerk's notation of notice without further verification. Defendants also contended that they appealed directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law, thereby accepting the trial court's findings of fact as conclusive. They further argued that their motion for a new trial was fatally defective for lack of an affidavit of merits, as required by the Rules of Court. Regarding the consolidated appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in not ordering the amendment of defendants' record on appeal to include material pleadings that were necessary for a proper understanding of the issues involved. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no merit in the defendants' appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether defendants were denied due process by the trial court's reception of plaintiffs' evidence in the absence of defendants' counsel. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for new trial for lack of an affidavit of merits. Whether defendants waived review of factual findings by appealing directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law without elevation of the evidence. Whether the trial court erred in approving defendants' record on appeal and in refusing to order amendment to include pleadings material to the appeal.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed. Costs against defendants-appellants in both cases. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial for failure to comply with Rule 37, Section 2 (absence of affidavit of merits). However, the trial court erred in failing to order the amendment of defendants' record on appeal to include material pleadings identified by plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Due process / lack of notice): The Court held that defendants' bare assertion of non-receipt of notice was insufficient to overcome the record evidence showing the clerk's attestation of mailing on October 15, 1963. The decision emphasized the presumption of regular performance of official duty and the presumption of receipt in the regular course of the mail, as reflected in Rule 131, sec. 5(m) and (v), and applied analogous decisions such as Fojas v. Navarro to sustain that presumption. The Court noted that defendants did not present counter-affidavits from court personnel, depositions, or oral testimony to rebut the attesting initial of the mailing clerk. Because the record contained affirmative indicia that notice had been sent, defendants' unsubstantiated allegations could not prevail. Finally, the Court observed that defendants appeared to have abandoned this contention in prior proceedings and had not acted to verify or prove non-mailing when given the opportunity. On Issue 2 (Affidavit of merits / motion for new trial): The Court reaffirmed the mandatory requirement under Rule 37, Section 2 that a motion for new trial based on lack of notice must be accompanied by an affidavit of merits setting forth facts constituting a meritorious defense. Applying Chingan v. LaGuardia and related precedents, the Court held that absence of the affidavit is a fatal defect that justifies denial of the motion. The Court explained that the requirement is substantive: it permits the trial court to determine whether the movant has a valid defense sufficient to warrant reopening the case, and mere allegations are not enough. Because defendants failed to attach such an affidavit stating facts (not conclusions), the trial court properly denied the motion. The Court further observed that defendants did not attempt to cure this defect and did not contest the trial court's factual findings on the merits in their brief. On Issue 3 (Direct appeal on questions of law / elevation of evidence): The Court held that by appealing directly to the Supreme Court on questions of law, defendants effectively accepted the trial court's factual findings as conclusive and foreclosed review of those findings. Citing Lanzar v. Guerrero, the Court explained that a direct appeal on questions of law limits review to legal issues only, whereas an appeal to the Court of Appeals with elevation of the evidence would have opened the factual findings to review. Because defendants chose the former course while contesting principally factual matters (e.g., notice), they waived the right to factual review. The Court therefore declined to disturb the trial court's factual findings regarding mailing of the notice. On Issue 4 (Record on appeal / amendment): The Court found that the trial court erred in refusing to order amendment of defendants' record on appeal to include pleadings and notices which plaintiffs asserted were material. Relying on precedents such as Jai Alai Corporation v. Court of First Instance of Manila and Smith Bell & Co. v. Sta. Maria, the Court reiterated that trial courts should be slow to exclude matters an appellant (or appellee seeking inclusion) wishes to insert in the record on appeal because such matters may be necessary for a just determination. The Court observed that plaintiffs' three principal items (motion for trial, notice granting the motion, and notice of hearing) were related to the appealed judgment and necessary for proper understanding of the issues, and thus should have been included. Despite this error, the Court nonetheless affirmed the judgment on its merits and with costs against defendants.
Main Doctrine
A movant claiming lack of notice must substantiate that claim in the manner required by the Rules of Court and attach an affidavit of merits to a motion for new trial; direct appeal on questions of law precludes review of factual findings; trial courts should include material pleadings in records on appeal.