[ G.R. No. L-4367. May 02, 1952 ] 91 Phil. 209
[ G.R. No. L-4367. May 02, 1952 ]
GENEROSA TORREFIEL AND JUAN TORREFIEL, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VERSUS ANASTACIO TORIANO, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES; PAULINA TORREFIEL, INTERVENOR AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
TUASON, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of Honorable Jose Teodoro, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, dismissing the case and a complaint in intervention. The action was for partition of a lot and was filed on May 19, 1949. After the defendants answered with counterclaims, Paulina Torrefiel filed a complaint in intervention claiming compensation for alleged services rendered to the defendants. The case having been set for September 20, 1950, Attorney Lozada for the plaintiffs and intervenor on September 16 filed a motion for indefinite postponement, with the conformity of the defendants’ counsel, on the grounds that Generosa Torrefiel, one of the plaintiffs, “would not be able to attend the trial.” Taking for granted, so it seems, that the motion would be granted, none of the parties, except plaintiffs’ and intervenor’s counsel, were on hand when the case was called at the scheduled hour. Attorney Lozada oast have called the court’s attention to his motion but the court refused to postpone the hearing beyond 10:00 o’clock a.m. of that day. Taken aback, counsel for plaintiffs notified the opposing counsel by telephone of the court’s unwillingness to continue the case, and Attorney Carbonel rushed to the court. In the meantime Attorney Lozada had gone out to look for and bring his clients, and came back at 10:20 with the intervenor, but then the case had already been dismissed, “due to non-appearance of the plaintiffs and their counsel when the case was called * * * at 10:10.” On September 26, Attorney Lozada filed “a motion for reconsideration, new trial and relief from the court’s order dated September 20, 1950,” in which he recited the above facts and stated that Juan Torrefiel was sick and Generosa Torrefiel “busy”. The court would not budge from its previous order, hence this appeal. The matter of adjournments and postponements of trials lies within the sound discretion of the courts, and such discretion will not be Interfered with unless a grave abuse thereof is shown. (Pellicena Camacho vs. Gonzales Liquete, 6 Phil., 50; Olsen v. Fressel & Co., 37 Phil., 121; Samson vs. Naval, 41 Phil., 838; 1 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, 528.) Upon the facts above stated we can not say that the lower court’s action was arbitrary. The adverse party’s conformity was not binding on the court. The trial of cases with reasonable dispatch is as much the concern of the judges’ as of the parties’. The case was more than one year old, and no reason other than that Generosa Torrefiel “would not be able to attend the trial” was alleged in support of the plaintiffs’ motion. Why this plaintiff was not able to come was not revealed, and neither did the motion say that her attendance was necessary. If Generosa Torrefiel was sick it should have been shown by affidavit that her presence was indispensable and that the character of her illness was such as to make her attendance impossible. (Rule 31, Section 3, of the Rules of Court.) Inasmuch, however, as it did not appear that the motion for postponement was due to any deliberate desire on the part of the plaintiffs and intervenor to delay the proceedings, or that the action was frivolous, at least as far as Juan Torrefiel was concerned, and inasmuch, moreover, as defendants’ attorney had expressly agreed to plaintiffs’ motion, the interest of justice and of the court could have been served with a dismissal of the case without prejudice. The appealed order will be affirmed with the modification that the dismissal will not be a bar to the filing of a new action and a new complaint in intervention upon the same subject matters, without special finding as to costs. Paras, C. J., Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, and Labrador, JJ., concur. Padilla, J., no part.