G.R. No. L-6908 - Rodillas vs. Farmacia Central, Inc.

The case involves plaintiff-appellant Gregorio Rodillas, a driver alleging that he rendered three hours of overtime service daily, for which he was entitled to overtime pay plus attorney’s fees as damages.
Defendant-appellee Farmacia Central, Inc. denied the claim and counterclaimed for damages.

The action was initially filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The trial court set the case for immediate hearing following an ex parte motion by plaintiff’s counsel on May 6, 1953.
The trial was scheduled for May 19, 1953 at 1:00 P.M.
At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff appeared without his counsel.

On the day of the scheduled hearing, at around 11:00 A.M., the trial court received a telegram stating:

“Please postpone Rodillas versus Farmacia late June busy continuation criminal trial Batangas. Atty Suanes.”

The party defending the postponement (via its counsel) objected to the request.
Plaintiff stated that he could not proceed with the trial, prompting the court to dismiss the case.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the plaintiff but was denied by the trial court.

Whether the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution (manifested by the absence of plaintiff’s counsel during trial) constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to appear and secure a postponement of the trial, as required by Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, amounted to an improper denial of due process.
Whether the filing of the motion for postponement on the very day of the trial, without notice to the opposing party, justified the court's subsequent dismissal of the case.