G.R. No. 155609 - St. Joseph's College vs. St. Joseph's College Workers' Association

On February 13, 1950, the plaintiffs (Alipio N. Casilan and Purita Galanara) filed their complaint against the defendants/appellees.

A preliminary injunction ordering the defendants, their agents, and representatives to desist from dismantling/removing certain “munition depositary huts.”
A declaration that the plaintiffs were the bona fide owners of 39 munition (quonset) huts located within the Naval Base, Lot 1, Barrio Carapdapan, Salcedo, Samar.
Payment of damages in the amount of P3,000, plus litigation costs.

On February 17, 1950, the court issued an order for a preliminary injunction against the defendants.
On March 4, 1950, the court approved a counterbond and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
On April 14, 1950, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, increasing the damages prayed to P23,400 plus costs.

Declared defendant Raymond Tomasi to be the lawful owner of the huts in controversy.
Ordered the plaintiffs to pay, jointly and severally, an amount of P9,033 (plus legal interest) as indemnity and damages to defendant Raymond Tomasi.
Imposed the costs of the action on the plaintiffs.

Set aside the trial court’s decision.
Remand the case for a new trial, noting that the initial complaint was dismissed for failure of the plaintiffs to prosecute.

Initially set for July 23, 1953 (or July 29, 1953, as noted), with necessary notifications issued.
Subsequently, on July 23, 1953, by mutual agreement through telegram, the hearing was rescheduled for August 26, 1953.

Citing the absence of key witnesses: one witness, Mr. Alfredo Eugenio, was in Indonesia on official government business; another witness, Mrs. Mercedes T. Casilan, was claimed to be physically unable to travel.

An earlier telegram from the plaintiffs’ counsel had also requested postponement on account of ongoing amicable settlement negotiations.
Defendants’ counsel opposed these postponement requests, noting that their witnesses were readily available from Tacloban City, Manila, and other provinces.

The trial court granted defendants’ position by denying the plaintiffs’ motion for postponement:

The court stated that neither the petition nor the verbal explanation by plaintiffs’ counsel demonstrated that the evidence intended to be obtained from the absent witnesses could not be adduced by other means.
The required affidavit under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 31 (detailing materiality, due diligence, and indispensability of the evidence) was not furnished.

On the scheduled date, the plaintiffs’ counsel, after moving for postponement, left the courtroom and could not be located.
This absence led to the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to prosecute.
The trial proceeded with the defendants presenting evidence in support of their counterclaim.

Held that the denial of the postponement motion was proper.
Noted that the plaintiffs’ counsel had ample opportunity to procure substitute witnesses.
Upheld the allowance for the defendants to amend their pleadings to conform their answer to the evidence presented.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for postponement of the trial based on the alleged absence of key witnesses.
Whether the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to prosecute was justified given the circumstances surrounding the plaintiffs’ counsel’s absence.
Whether allowing the defendants to amend their answer to conform with the evidence presented was proper, especially in the context of the trial court’s procedural rulings.