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.

Orfida versus Panuelos

The Case

This is the case of Orfida versus Panuelos, an appeal brought to the Supreme Court by a landowner against his former tenant and against the judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations of Naga City. The tenant, Pedro Panuelos, had sued for reinstatement and damages after the landowner, Francisco Orfida, ejected him from a small landholding and installed another man as the new tenant. The landowner lost before the agrarian court, and when he was finally given a new trial to present his evidence, he and his counsel arrived late. The case matters because it teaches the discipline of procedural diligence: a litigant who is given his day in court but squanders it cannot later cry that he was denied his day in court, and a judge who merely exercises sound discretion will not be disturbed on appeal.

Procedural History

The tenant filed a petition for reinstatement and damages before the Court of Agrarian Relations of Naga City. The landowner answered, denying illegal ejectment and setting up surrender of the land as a special defense, and he counterclaimed for undelivered shares of palay and damages. The other respondent, Mariano Fullero, was declared in default for failing to answer. After the tenant rested his case, the reception of the landowner's evidence was set, reset, and finally fixed for December 12, 1963. On that date the landowner did not appear, and upon the tenant's motion the case was submitted for decision on the tenant's evidence. The agrarian court rendered its decision on February 12, 1964, ordering the tenant's reinstatement, the ejectment of Mariano Fullero, and the payment of consequential damages. The landowner moved for a new trial. On June 9, 1964, the court granted the motion, set aside its decision, and set the reception of the landowner's evidence for June 17, 1964. On June 17 the landowner and his counsel were absent when the case was called, and the court set aside its order for new trial and revived the February 12, 1964 decision. The landowner's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 24, 1964. The landowner then filed a notice of appeal, and the case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the agrarian court.

Facts

Since 1918, Pedro Panuelos had been the tenant on a landholding of about one and a half hectares in Bagacay, San Jose, Camarines Sur. In November 1960, the landowner Francisco Orfida ejected him and placed Mariano Fullero on the land as the new tenant. On March 27, 1961, the tenant filed his petition for reinstatement and damages. The landowner answered that the tenant had voluntarily surrendered the land after the palay harvest in December 1960, and he counterclaimed for ninety-six cavans of palay representing undelivered shares from 1942 to 1950, plus damages.

The tenant presented his evidence on September 9, 1963, and rested. The hearing for the landowner's evidence was postponed several times until it was set for December 12, 1963. On that day the landowner failed to appear, and the case was submitted for decision on the tenant's evidence alone. The agrarian court then ruled for the tenant on February 12, 1964.

The landowner moved for a new trial, and the court, in a spirit of liberality, granted it on June 9, 1964, set aside its decision, and scheduled the reception of the landowner's evidence for nine o'clock in the morning of June 17, 1964. On that morning the court first heard another agrarian case, then called the present case at nine fourteen, but the landowner and his counsel were not in court. On the tenant's motion, the court set aside the order for new trial and revived the February 12, 1964 decision. The landowner's counsel arrived only at nine thirty-four, after the session for this case had ended, explaining that his client's failing health and eyesight had delayed them. The judge advised him to file a written motion for reconsideration with notice to the tenant. That motion was set for hearing on July 24, 1964, but the landowner and his counsel again did not appear, and the court denied the motion for lack of merit.

Issues

• Whether or not the tardiness of the landowner and his counsel on June 17, 1964 constituted excusable negligence.
• Whether or not the agrarian court judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the order for new trial and reviving the February 12, 1964 decision.
• Whether or not the revival of the February 12, 1964 decision, without requiring the presentation of new evidence, deprived the landowner of his day in court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the settled rule that a motion for new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and that discretionary orders will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. The Court applied that rule to the agrarian court's orders of June 9, June 17, and July 24, 1964, and found no abuse.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the tardiness was not excusable negligence. The landowner claimed that he and his counsel had to travel from Goa, fifty kilometers from Naga City, by bus, and that he was blind and suffering from hypertension. But the record showed that his poor vision had existed long before June 17, 1964, and that he had attended previous hearings. The trip by bus took only about two hours, and buses left Goa for Naga City at three thirty, four, five, and six in the morning, so a traveler could easily arrive before nine. The tenant and his counsel, by contrast, came from San Jose, fifty-five kilometers away. The Court concluded that the landowner had been duly notified and had ample time to prepare.

On the second issue, the Court held that the agrarian judge had simply exercised his discretion, and it declined to disturb his action because nothing in the record showed abuse of discretion. On the contrary, the judge had been considerate, giving the landowner many chances, even suggesting the filing of a motion for reconsideration with notice to the tenant. The landowner failed to appear at the July 24, 1964 hearing on that very motion. The Court observed that the landowner had not exercised due diligence in defending his rights.

On the third issue, the Court held that the revival of the February 12, 1964 decision did not deprive the landowner of his day in court. That decision rested on the evidence the tenant presented on September 9, 1963. The new trial had been granted solely to give the landowner a chance to present his own evidence, and he failed to avail of it with diligence. Since no new trial was actually held, the evidence of the tenant stood, and the decision based on it was properly revived.

Doctrine

A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its grant or denial will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. A litigant who is given a full opportunity to present his evidence but fails to appear through his own lack of diligence cannot later claim that he was deprived of his day in court. Excusable negligence must be measured against the circumstances: proximity of the courthouse, availability of transportation, prior notice, and the litigant's conduct at earlier hearings. Where a new trial is set aside because the movant defaulted, the judgment rendered on the evidence already presented stands, for that evidence was never displaced.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the February 12, 1964 decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations and its orders of June 17 and July 24, 1964, with costs against the landowner Francisco Orfida. The tenant Panuelos won.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a litigant given his day in court who squanders it cannot claim he was denied his day in court. Examiners use this case to test the standard for excusable negligence in motions for new trial and the deference owed to a trial judge's discretionary orders.