Vera v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Mercy Almonidovar de Vera and Juan de Vera sought to restrain the Sheriff of Manila from selling two buildings owned by petitioners at public auction, and to annul an order for immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal. The case originated from a building contract between Manila Investment & Construction Co., Inc. (MICCI) and Mercy Almonidovar. MICCI assigned its credit from Mercy to Jose S. Biagtan, Inc. (JSBI). JSBI sued Mercy and her husband Bienvenido Castillo. Bienvenido admitted the contract but claimed damages due to plan alterations and alleged a common-law relationship with Mercy, seeking an accounting of assets. Mercy denied the cross-claim and alleged damages against MICCI for breach of contract. The complaint was amended to implead MICCI. Procedural History: During trial, Mercy requested a two-week adjournment for amicable settlement, which was granted, setting the hearing for May 13, 1964. On May 12, 1964, Mercy's counsel filed an urgent motion for postponement, citing a conflicting hearing in an administrative case before the Supreme Court in Baguio City on the same date and time. On May 13, 1964, the court denied the motion, considered Mercy as having waived her right to present evidence, and gave plaintiffs 15 days to submit memoranda. A decision was rendered on December 18, 1964, ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay JSBI P99,708.52 with interest and attorney's fees. Upon JSBI's motion, the respondent judge issued an order for immediate execution on January 16, 1965. The Sheriff levied on Mercy's properties and advertised their sale. Mercy, with her husband, filed the instant petition for certiorari and injunction, claiming grave abuse of discretion in the denial of postponement and the order for immediate execution. The Petition: Petitioners contend that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and in ordering immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal without special reason.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and considering petitioner Mercy Almonidovar as having waived her right to present evidence. Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved. Costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for postponement and waiver of right to present evidence: The Court held that motions for postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed absent a clear and manifest abuse of discretion resulting in a denial of substantial justice. Petitioners had ample time to request a postponement but filed the motion at the last moment. Furthermore, the motion did not conform to the rules regarding notice to the adverse party, and petitioners failed to be present in court on the hearing date to ascertain the ruling on their motion. The Court reiterated that movants have no right to assume their motion will be granted and must be in court if it is denied. Therefore, the respondent judge committed no abuse of discretion. On the order for immediate execution pending appeal: The Court stated that Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not enumerate specific reasons for immediate execution, leaving it to the trial court's discretion, which will not be interfered with unless abused. The order for immediate execution was justified because the appeal was considered pro forma, meaning it was a mere dilatory tactic without substantial legal basis. Additionally, Mercy Almonidovar failed to comply with the court's order to deposit monthly rentals of the building. The Court found that the appeal being pro forma and the failure to deposit rentals constituted sufficient reasons for immediate execution, and thus the respondent judge did not act arbitrarily.
Main Doctrine
A motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its denial will not be disturbed absent a clear and manifest abuse of discretion resulting in a denial of substantial justice. Furthermore, a party cannot assume that a motion for postponement will be granted, especially when filed at the last moment and without proper notice to the adverse party, and must be present in court on the hearing date to proceed with the trial if the motion is denied. An appeal may be considered pro forma and thus insufficient to stay execution if it raises no substantial questions of law or fact and appears to be a mere dilatory tactic.