G.R. No. 105135 - Sunlife Assurance Co. of Canada vs. Court of Appeals

The case arises from six separate complaints filed by Diosdado C. Ty, a mechanic-operator, seeking to recover P650.00 for injuries to his left hand resulting in temporary total disability.
The complaints were against six different insurance companies with which the plaintiff had contracts of insurance against death or disability caused by accidental means.

The several complaints, although initiated in the Municipal Court of Manila, were eventually reproduced in separate civil cases (Civil Cases Nos. 26343, 26344, 26404, 26405, 26406, and 26442) and subsequently consolidated for a joint trial because they involved a common question of fact and law.
On July 31, 1956, during the initial hearing, the plaintiff testified and underwent cross-examination by the defendants’ counsel; however, the cross-examination was not completed, and a continuance was set for the next hearing date.

The continuance was scheduled for August 30, 1956, with the understanding that both parties were prepared to resume the hearing.
On the morning of August 30, 1956, defendants, through counsel, appeared and indicated their readiness, while the plaintiff was delayed. The court, after a brief delay, re-called the case at 10:30 AM.

When the plaintiff failed to appear at the 10:30 AM hearing, the lower court issued an order dismissing the complaints, though it was expressly stated that this dismissal was "without prejudice" to allow the filing of other complaints at a subsequent time should the plaintiff so desire.
The dismissal order was based solely on the plaintiff’s failure to appear without considering any justifying circumstances.

On September 26, 1956, the plaintiff, through his counsel, filed a motion to set aside the order of dismissal, asserting that his absence was due to sickness—specifically, influenza with acute bronchitis that confined him to bed for about six days.
The motion was supported by an affidavit of merit and the sworn statement of the plaintiff’s attending physician, which were intended to demonstrate the existence of a good and substantial cause of action.
Despite these submissions, the lower court denied the motion, leading the plaintiff to appeal the decision on the ground that the dismissal was erroneous given his excusable absence.

Whether the dismissal of the complaints by the lower court was proper, given that the plaintiff's absence at the hearing was due to a legitimate and excusable cause (i.e., sickness).

The central legal question is if an accidental or excusable absence, supported by credible medical evidence, should justify the setting aside of a dismissal order.
Whether the motion to set aside the dismissal, filed within the reglementary period and supported by an affidavit of merit, should be resolved as a petition for relief under Rule 38.

Whether reopening the cases by allowing the plaintiff to present his evidence at a continuance would be in consonance with principles of fair play and justice.

Consideration of whether allowing the continuance would unfairly prejudice the defendant insurance companies.
The impact of dismissal versus the option to reopen the case for a poor litigant prosecuting as a pauper.