Case Digest (G.R. No. 164408)
Facts:
In the case of G.R. No. L-4039, the plaintiffs-appellees Victorina A. de Gaerlan and her husband Salvador Gaerlan, owners of a building located at Nos. 611-613 Arlegui Street, Manila, filed an ejectment suit against the defendants-appellants Carmen Bernal, Ramon Bernal, and Maria Villongco in the Municipal Court of Manila. The ejectment was initiated to recover possession of the said property, as well as the collection of unpaid rentals, including an outstanding amount of P80.00 for electric light bills. Initially, the Municipal Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the property and pay them P500.00 as back rent for August 1947, and P700.00 per month from September 1947 until they vacated the premises, along with the P80.00 for electric bills, plus costs.
Upon the defendants’ appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila, a second judgment was delivered on November 4, 1948, also favoring the plaintiffs. This ruling mandated the defendants
Case Digest (G.R. No. 164408)
Facts:
- Parties and Property:
- Plaintiffs: Victorina A. de Gaerlan and Salvador Gaerlan, owners of the building known as Nos. 611-613 Arlegui Street, Manila.
- Defendants: Carmen Bernal, Ramon Bernal, and Maria Villongco, who occupied the property as tenants.
- Lease Agreement and Contractual Obligations:
- The lease agreement stipulated a monthly rental of P700.00 (or P350.00 per door) for the use of the premises.
- Defendants were contractually obligated to pay not only the rental but also the electric light bills.
- Occupancy Details and Payment History:
- Defendants occupied the premises from August 1947 until vacating on March 11, 1948.
- For August 1947, defendants made a partial payment of P200.00, leaving P500.00 unpaid.
- Rental payments for the subsequent months (September 1947 to February 1948, numbering six months) were not made.
- For the period of March 1-11, 1948, the prorated rental amounted to P233.33.
- Additionally, a separate charge of P80.00 was incurred for electric light consumption during the occupancy.
- Judgments Rendered in Lower Courts:
- Initial judgment from the Municipal Court ordered ejectment of the defendants and payment of back rentals along with the electric bill.
- Plaintiffs obtained a subsequent judgment from the Court of First Instance on November 4, 1948, ordering:
- Payment of P500.00 for August 1947.
- Payment of P700.00 per month for September 1947 to February 1948 (totaling P4,200.00).
- Payment of P233.33 for March 1948.
- Inclusion of P80.00 for electric consumption, bringing the total to P5,013.33, with legal interest from March 12, 1948.
- Procedural Developments and Appeals:
- Although the defendants had been ordered to vacate the property, they had already left on March 11, 1948, rendering the ejectment order moot.
- Defendants’ counsel, through the law firm Francisco, Jacinto & Santillan, did not appear at the hearing, prompting a motion for new trial.
- Atty. Augusto Francisco filed the motion on November 29, 1948, attributing his absence to personal emergencies involving the illness of his father and his 8-year-old son.
- The motion for new trial was denied by Judge Oscar Castelo on December 4, 1948.
- The defendants subsequently appealed the denial, framing the appeal around the issues of excusable negligence and the alleged existence of a valid and meritorious defense.
Issues:
- Whether Atty. Augusto Francisco’s failure to appear at the trial—alleged to be due to personal emergencies (his father’s and son’s illnesses)—constitutes excusable negligence warranting a new trial or relief from judgment.
- Whether the proper procedural steps (filing a petition for relief or a timely motion for postponement) were observed by the defendants in light of the attorney’s absence.
- Whether the defendants presented sufficient evidence, such as affidavits showing a valid and meritorious defense, to support their claim for a new trial.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)