FRANCISCO ORFIDA, PETITIONER, VS. PEDRO PANUELOS AND HON. VALERIANO DEL VALLE, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 9TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRANCH I, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal
from the decision, dated February 12, 1964, of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Ninth Regional District, Branch I, Naga City, and the order of the same court,
dated July 24, 1964, in CAR Case No. 608-CS-‘61.

On March 27, 1961, respondent Pedro Panuelos – hereinafter
referred to as tenant – filed with the Court of Agrairan Relations, Naga City, a petition for reinstatement and
damages, wherein he allege that since 1918 he had been the tenant on a
landholding si­tuated at Bagacay, San Jose, Camarines Sur, with an area of 1.5
hectares, more or less; and that in Novem­ber, 1960 he was ejected therefrom by
herein petitioner Francisco Orfida – hereafter referred to as landowner who placed a certain Mariano Fullero^[1] as the new tenant thereon.

On August 1, 1961, the landowner filed his answer, denying the
claim of illegal ejectment and alleging, by way of special defense, that the
tenant had surrendered to him the land after the palay harvest in
December,1960.  As counterclaim, the
landowner prayed for the delivery of 96 cavans of palay, or its value in the
sum of P1,056.00, representing his undelivered shares from 1942 to 1950, and
the payment of damages.  Mariano Fullero,
the other respondent in the lower court, was declared in default upon his
failure to file an answer.

After submitting his
evidence at the hearing on
September 9, 1963, the tenant rested his case. 
The re­ception of the evidence for the landowner was set for Oc­tober
11, 1963, then reset for November 14, 1963, and finally for December 12, 1963.  When the case was called for hearing on
December 12, 1963, the landowner failed to appear, thereupon counsel for the
tenant moved for the submission of the case for decision
on the basis on the evidence presented by the tenant.

On February 12, 1964, the
agrarian court rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement of the tenant,
the ejectment of Mariano Fullero from the landholding in question, and the
landowner to pay the tenant twelve (12) cavans of palay, or their value
at the rate of P12.00 per cavern – as consequential damages representing the ex­tent of the tenant’s participation
beginning from the year 1960 and for every year thereafter until the tenant is
reinstated.

On March 10, 1964, the landowner, through counsel, filed a motion
for new trial, which motion was opposed by the tenant.  Before resolving the said motion for new
trial the lower court set the same for oral argument on May 27, 1964.  On May 27, 1964, for failure of the tenant’s counsel to appear because he was
indisposed, the lower court reset the hearing for oral argument for June 9,
1964.  On June 9, 1964, counsel for the
landowner appeared alone, while the tenant appeared and informed the court that
his counsel, Atty. Pacamarra, had a case before the Municipal Judge of
Tigaon.  At this stage, respondent Judge,
finding the motion for new trial to be well founded, without hearing any more
the motion on oral argument, issued an order granting the landowner’s motion
for new trial, setting aside his decision of February 12, 1964 in order to
afford the landowner opportunity to present his evidence, and at the same time
setting the hearing for new trial on June 17, 1964 at 9:00 a.m. in the sala of the court in Naga City.

On June 17, 1964, at 9:00 a.m. – the time and day set for the
hearing – the court first heard CAR Case No. 788 – Camarines Sur ’63, entitled
“Sixto Cabilin vs. Rufino Ramos, et
al.” Later, at 9:14 a.m., the hearing of the “Cabilin vs. Ramos” case
was suspended and the instant
case was called, but the landowner and his counsel were not in court.  Thereupon, on motion of counsel for the
tenant, respondent Judge issued an order in open court setting aside his order
for new trial of June 9, 1964 and reviving the judgment on the merits of this
case which was issued on February 12, 1964. 
At 9:22 a.m., the court session for this particular case was terminated, and the tenant
and his counsel left the courtroom.  At
9:23 a.m. the hearing of CAR Case No. 788 was resumed, and after the respondent
Judge had finished dictating an order in the said case in open court, the court
session was adjourned at 9:34 a.m.  It
was at this precise mo­ment – 9:34 a.m. that the landowner’s counsel, Atty.
David C. Naval, appeared and manifested to the court that he learned of the
recent order of the court setting aside the order for a new trial and reviving
the decision that was rendered on February 12,1964, and said counsel re­quested
that the latest order be set aside for
the reason that his failure to arrive in court on time was due to his client’s
failing health and eyesight.  Since the
te­nant and his counsel had already left the courtroom, the counsel for the
landowner was advised by respondent Judge to file a written motion for reconsideration and to serve a copy of it
to the tenant so that the latter would have an opportunity to object or conform
to the motion.  On the same day, June 17,
1964, at 2:00 p.m., the landowner’s counsel filed his motion for
reconsideration.  The record shows that
to this motion is attached a small
note, writ­ten on a piece of paper bearing the rubber stamp letter­head of the
agrarian court, which reads: “Petitioner’s counsel manifested to submit
his motion w/out further argument.” 
The signature on the note is illegible. 
The court, nevertheless, set the motion for ‘reconsideration for hearing
on July 24, 1964, and counsel for the land­owner was duly notified of this
hearing on July 11, 1964 by registered mail. 
On July 13, 1964, counsel for the landowner filed a motion for continuance of the
scheduled hearing on his motion
for reconsideration, alleg­ing as reason that he had to appear at the hearing
of two criminal cases before
the Municipal Court of Cabusao, Camarines Sur, at the same hour and day that
his motion for reconsideration was
scheduled to be heard on July 24, 1964. 
On July 20, 1964, the tenant filed his opposition to the landowner’s
motion for reconsideration of the order of June 17, 1964.  On July 24, 1964, respondent Judge issued an order
denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

On August 14, 1964, the
landowner, through counsel, filed before the agrarian court a notice of
appeal.  Subsequently, on August
18, 1964, the landowner filed the present appeal before this Court.

In this appeal the
landowner claims:  (1) that res­pondent
Judge erred in not holding that the tardiness of petitioner (landowner) and his
counsel on June 17, 1964 was excusable negligence; and (2) that respondent
Judge erred in ordering, without offer of evidence, the revival of the judgment
rendered on the merits of the case dated February 12, 1964 which had been
previously set aside.

This appeal has no merit.

The landowner contends
that respondent Judge com­mitted an error when on June 17, 1964 he issued the
order setting aside the order of June 9, 1964 and reviving the decision of
February 12, 1964.  This order of June 9
set aside the decision rendered on February 12, 1964 and granted a new trial
“at which respondent /landowner/ shall be allowed to present his
evidence.”^[2] Precisely, the hearing of June 17, 1964, was
set for the reception of the evidence pursuant to the order of June 9,
1964.  But when the case was called for
hearing on June 17, 1964 the landowner and his lawyer were not present, and so
the court issued that order in question.

The record shows that the landowner was duly noti­fied of the
hearing set for June 17, 1964, and had ample time to prepare for the scheduled
hearing.  The landown­er and his counsel
arrived late in court on the day of the hearing.  The landowner and his counsel arrived late in
court on the day of the hearing.  The
landowner claims that they arrived in court late because he and his counsel had
to come from the town of Goa which is fifty kilometers distant from Naga City
and they had to travel by bus, and that he is blind and suffering from hypertension.  It appears, how­ever, that the landowner had
been having a poor vision for sometime, long before June 17, 1964, and he had
been attending previous hearings of this case. 
The record discloses that the trip from Goa to Naga City by bus takes only
about two hours, and there are many buses that leave Goa for Naga at such a
time as would enable a traveler from Goa to reach Naga City before nine o’clock
in the morning – because there are buses that leave Goa for Naga City at 3:30,
4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning.  It
is shown also in the record that the tenant and his counsel came from the town
of San Jose which is 55 kilometers distant from Naga City.  The landowner cannot, therefore, claim that
their late arrival in court was excusable neg­ligence on his part and on the
part of his counsel.  At any rate, We
consider that in issuing the orders of June 17, 1964 and of July 24, 1964,
respondent Judge had sim­ply exercised his discretion, and We do not
choose to disturb the action of the Judge because there is nothing in the
record that would justify a finding that the Judge acted with abuse of discretion.  On the contrary, We note that respondent
Judge had been rather considerate with the landowner, and had given the
landowner many chances to defend his side of the case.  After respondent Judge had issued the order
of June 17, 1964 he even suggested to counsel of the landowner to file a motion
for reconsi­deration, with notice to the tenant so that the latter is afforded
a chance to agree or object.  The motion
for reconsideration was set for hearing on July 24, 1964, but the landowner and
his counsel did not appear at the hear­ing, so respondent Judge denied the
motion for reconsi­deration on that day.

A reading of the record of this case gives Us the impression that
the landowner has not exercised due dili­gence in defending his rights and
interests in spite of the chances that respondent Judge had given him.  Under the circumstances obtaining in this
case in the court below, as have been pointed out in this opinion, We are of
the considered view that respondent Judge had good and valid reasons to issue
his order of July 24, 1964 denying the motion for reconsideration of the order
of June 17, 1964 – thereby maintaining the order of June 9, 1964 which gave the
effect of reviving the decision that he rendered on February 12, 1964.

The landowner also contends that respondent Judge erred when he
ordered the revival of the decision ren­dered on February 12, 1964 without
requiring the presenta­tion of new evidence to support the decision, thereby de­priving
him of his day in court.  This argument
is flimsy.  The decision of February 12,
1964 was based
on the evi­dence presented by the tenant on September 9, 1963, as reported
by the commissioner duly appointed by the agra­rian court.  The new trial ordered by the court was simply for the purpose of giving
the landowner a chance to pre­sent his own evidence.  But the landowner did not exert diligence to
avail of the opportunity given him to pre­sent his evidence.  He cannot correctly claim now that he has
been deprived of his day in court.  The
decision of February 12, 1964 has for its basis the evidence present­ed by the
tenant on September 9, 1963.  Inasmuch as
no new trial was actually held, because the order of June 17, 1964 had done
away with the new trial that was pre­viously granted in the order of June 9,
1964, it follows that the evidence presented by the tenant on September 9, 1963
stands.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Court of
Agrarian Relations, Ninth Regional District, Branch I, Naga City, in its CAR
Case No. 608-CS-‘61, dated Feb­ruary 12, 1964, and its orders dated June 17,
1964 and July 24, 1964 in said case, are affirmed, with costs against the
petitioner Francisco Orfida.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Bengzon, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., did
not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., on official
leave.

^[1]
Also a co-respondent of
Francisco Orfida in the court below.

^[2]
As quoted from the order of June 17, 1964. 
The word inside the bracket is supplied.