G.R. No. 47848 - Dangalan vs. Marticio y Otro

Bonifacio Dangalan (demandante y apelado) initiated an action to recover P584.20 – the value of salted fish – plus P116 in damages from the defendants.
The defendants included Domingo Marticio, Teodoro Bonafe, and Juan Babasa, who were respectively identified as the owner, the driver (chofer), and the conductor or loader (cargador) of the truck numbered 1015.

The demandante had an agreement with Domingo Marticio wherein his truck would transport salted fish from the Putiao area in Pilar, Sorsogon to Tabaco, Albay, for a rental fee of P7.
On December 1, 1936, at kilometer 9 in the Libog municipality, Albay, the truck experienced a breakdown and shortly thereafter, a bagyo (tropical storm) struck the area.
When the truck was stationary the next day, the demandante’s representative went to secure another motor vehicle to transport the cargo; meanwhile, the chofer and the conductor abandoned the truck, leaving it vulnerable to theft.
Nearly the entire consignment of salted fish, valued at P584.20, was lost due to the negligence of the personnel and subsequent theft, causing also P116 in damages from lost profits.

The case was initially heard by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Albay.
During the trial, the demandante presented evidences supporting his allegations even though the defendants and their lawyer were absent, despite proper notification.
On February 6, 1939, the court rendered a decision awarding the demandante the claimed sums in a joint and solidary order against the defendants, including the costs.

On February 9, 1939, the defendants’ lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration arguing:

His absence during the trial was due to his commitment in Daet, Camarines Norte where he was defending an accused in a separate criminal case.
The presiding judge had previously granted him permission to miss the trial in his capacity as counsel for the accused.
He had, prior to leaving for Daet, arranged with the demandante’s lawyer to postpone the trial set for February 2, 1939, thus providing an opportunity for the defendants to present their evidence.

The demandante’s lawyer countered, denying any agreement to reschedule the trial.
On July 10, 1939, the court issued an auto that set aside its earlier decision and reopened the trial to allow the defendants to present their evidence.
Subsequently, the demandante filed his own motion for reconsideration of the July 10 auto, contending:

The defendants’ motion was not supported by the required sworn affidavits or declarations of merit.
There had been no valid agreement between the parties’ lawyers to transfer the set trial date.

On September 19, 1939, the court, finding the demandante’s motion well-founded—since the defendants’ motion failed to meet the legal requirements and no such postponement agreement was proven—reversed the July 10 auto, thereby affirming the original decision of February 6, 1939.

The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred and abused its discretion by:

Revoking the July 10 auto.
Not allowing them a full opportunity to present evidence which they claimed could have altered the trial’s outcome.

The appellate review centered on whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in evaluating the motions for reconsideration.

Whether the trial court committed an error or abused its discretion in revoking the July 10 auto that allowed the defendants a chance to present their evidence.

The defendants contended that their absence at the original hearing and the agreement to postpone the trial should have warranted reconsideration of the February 6 decision.
The requirement that a motion for reconsideration must be supported by sworn affidavits and declarations establishing the relevance of new evidence was challenged in the context of the defendants’ motion.

Whether the absence of the defendants and the alleged agreement between counsel were sufficient grounds to reopen the trial, given the formal requirements for a valid motion for reconsideration.