Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20887)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20887)
Facts:
Juan Ong v. Isabelo Fonacier, G.R. No. L-20887, July 08, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff Juan Ong sued defendant Isabelo F. Fonacier in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur on July 11, 1956, for recovery of alleged loans totaling P4,210 plus damages and attorney’s fees. The CFI declared Fonacier in default on December 19, 1956. Despite the default, Fonacier filed an answer (December 29, 1956) incorporating a motion for leave to file a third‑party complaint against Fernando Gaite, and asserted a counterclaim against Ong.
The trial court initially denied leave to file the third‑party complaint on January 7, 1957 because Fonacier was in default, but on March 6, 1957 the court lifted the default, admitted the answer and permitted the third‑party complaint. Fonacier’s pleadings alleged that the sums Ong delivered were payments of royalties from iron lode mining operations and that Ong and Gaite remained indebted to Fonacier for royalties; he claimed additional damages and fees. Gaite answered the third‑party complaint on August 10, 1957 with his own counterclaim alleging a contract (dated December 8, 1954) recognizing his 10% share of royalties and asserting a balance due of P7,333.33 plus damages. Fonacier’s September 24, 1958 answer to Gaite’s counterclaim admitted he bought Gaite’s 10% share but alleged a failure of delivery by Gaite as justification for nonpayment of the full purchase price.
Several procedural motions followed: Gaite moved (Sept. 26, 1958) to declare Fonacier in default as to Gaite’s counterclaim; Fonacier moved (Oct. 2, 1958) to declare Ong in default as to Fonacier’s counterclaim and on Oct. 10, 1958 Ong was declared in default for failure to file a responsive pleading (he filed a motion for reconsideration Oct. 22, 1958); Fonacier on Nov. 2, 1958 moved to declare Gaite in default and sought leave to file an amended answer. Trial was set for November 5, 1958. At the hearing Ong and Gaite appeared but Fonacier did not; a telegraphic motion for postponement from Fonacier was received at 10 A.M. that day. The CFI, finding the postponement unjustified (Fonacier still represented by counsel), proceeded with trial and received evidence from Ong and Gaite.
The CFI rendered judgment on January 6, 1959, finding Ong had loaned Fonacier P4,060 and awarding Gaite P7,333.33 on his counterclaim; the trial court ordered payment with interest “from the filing of the action until payment,” and dismissed the third‑party complaint. Fonacier’s motion to set aside (filed March 4, 1959) was denied July 10, 1959. Fonacier perfected an appeal, which the trial court initially refused to allow; the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus (Fonacier v. Surtida, L‑15944, Sept. 28, 1961) compelling allowance of the appeal. The record went to the Court of Appeals, which, by resolution of February 2, 1963, certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as presenting questions purely of law; Fonacier’s motion to reconsider that certification was denied (Feb. 26, 1963).
Before the Supreme Court Fonacier argued that trying the case in his absence violated his constitutional right to be heard and that the judgment was premature because several motions were unresolved and issues not joined. He also sought to supplement the record on appeal with additional documents. The Supreme Court considered the procedural record, relevant precedents, and Article 2209 of the Civil Code with respect to interest. The Court affirmed the appealed judgment on July 8, 1966. By Resolution dated Sept. 13, 1966 the Court amended its dispositive to specify the proper dates from which interest runs (July 11, 1956 for Ong’s award; August 10, 1957 for Gaite’s award) and to exclude the period July 24, 1959 to Jan. 22, 1962 (when the appeal was erroneously held in abeyance) from interest computation.
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in trying the case in the absence of defendant‑third‑party plaintiff Fonacier and thereby deny his constitutional right to be heard?
- Was the trial court’s decision premature because the issues were not yet joined due to pending motions?
- Should the Supreme Court admit Fonacier’s proffered additional records or remand the case to the CFI for correction/completion of the record?
- From what dates should interest be computed on the respective monetary awards, and should the period during which the appeal was held in abeyance be excluded?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)