G.R. No. 43013. January 23, 1935
AMADEO LINIS, PETITIONER, VS. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
IMPERIAL, J.:
The petitioner, instead of appealing from the decision and order thus rendered, interposed the writ of certiorari herein, alleging that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion in denying his motion for the postponement of the case, and in rendering judgment without first hearing the evidence which said petitioner could have presented had he been present.
There is no need of a lengthy discussion in order to show that the petition is unreasonable and frivolous. It was the fault of the petitioner in having entrusted his case to an attorney who could not appear in court on the date set for the hearing thereof. Neither had the attorney any right to presume that the hearing would be postponed to another date for his convenience and that of his client, to the damage and prejudice of the other parties litigant. The most prudent and reasonable solution of such a case, where the client and the attorney both knew that the latter had to appear in another case on that date, would have been, for the former, to engage the services of another attorney, or, for the latter, to decline to accept the case.
The postponement of the hearing of a case, which had been previously set and of which the parties and their attorneys had already been notified, is not an absolute right of the litigants nor of their attorneys. The granting of a motion for postponement depends entirely upon the discretion of the courts, in the exercise of which all the attending circumstances and the rights of all the parties appearing therein should be taken into account. If the postponement would manifestly prejudice some of the parties, or, if the motion for postponement had been presented too late to prevent them from notifying their witnesses not to appear, thus causing them considerable trouble and expense, as probably would have happened in the present case, it is the duty of the courts to deny it.
An attorney who accepts a case, knowing that the hearing thereof is set for a date on which he can not appear, because of the trial of another ease, which was set previously, has no right to presume that the court will necessarily grant his motion for the postponement of the hearing. In such a situation the most ethical thing to do would be to inform the client of such facts in order that he might employ another attorney. If the client, having full knowledge of such circumstances, entrusts the case to the attorney, he assumes the risk himself and can not later complain of the consequences of his negligence and imprudence.
The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied, with costs. So ordered.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.
Writ denied.