Case Summary (G.R. No. 45904)
Motion for Reconsideration and Effect on Appeal Period
Yap filed a motion for reconsideration on September 16, 1969, seeking to present defenses and explore settlement. It was unverified and lacked an affidavit of merit. The Court denied it on October 10, 1969, and issued a writ of execution on October 15, 1969. Under Rule 41, Sec. 3, the pendency of a motion to set aside or for new trial suspends the appeal period only if it satisfies Rule 37 requirements. Because Yap’s motion lacked the required affidavit of merit, it was pro forma and did not interrupt the 30-day appeal period, which expired on October 1, 1969. Consequently, the judgment became final and executory.
Requirements for a Motion for New Trial
Rule 37 requires that a motion based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (Sec. 1[a]) be supported by an affidavit of merit setting forth facts constituting the valid defense. Yap’s motion invoked Section 1(a) but did not attach such an affidavit. The absence of detailed factual allegations rendered the motion fatally defective and pro forma, barring any extension of the appeal period.
Alleged Irregularities in Pre-Trial Proceedings
Yap contended that his desire to negotiate an amicable settlement justified postponement of the pre‐trial. The Court found this claim disingenuous because his plea came at the last minute, he never broached settlement earlier, and he avoided appearing at a pre‐trial already postponed at his instance. He also failed to serve notice of his motion three days before hearing as required by Rule 15, Secs. 4–6. The trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying further postponement.
Completeness and Certainty of the Judgment
Yap argued the judgment was vague for omitting the computation starting date for interest and unspecified “other expenses.” The Court held these omissions immaterial: the default date (May 31, 1968) was clear from the record, and failure to address his counterclaim was a consequence of his default and waiver of defenses and counterclaims at pre-trial.
Classification of the Pump: Movable or Immovable
Yap claimed the pump, once bolted to his residence, became immovable and required publication notice before sale under Rule 39, Sec. 18. The Court applied Civil Code Art. 415(3) and conclude
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 45904)
Factual Antecedents
- Goulds Pumps International (Phil.), Inc. sued Julian S. Yap and his wife before the City Court of Cebu for ₱1,459.30, the balance of price and installation cost of a water pump.
- The City Court rendered ex parte judgment on November 25, 1968 in favor of Goulds, awarding:
- ₱1,459.30 plus 12% interest from August 12, 1968;
- ₱364.80 as attorney’s fees (25% of principal);
- costs of suit.
- Yap appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, assigned to Judge Santiago O. Tanada.
Declaration of Default and Ex Parte Judgment
- On August 28, 1969 Yap failed to appear at a pre-trial date set with intransferable character; his ex parte motion for postponement was denied.
- Judge Tanada declared Yap in default and authorized ex parte presentation of plaintiff’s evidence.
- On August 29, 1969 the CFI rendered judgment by default ordering Yap to pay:
- ₱1,459.30 plus 12% interest until paid;
- 25% of the unpaid obligation as attorney’s fees;
- costs and expenses.
Post-Judgment Motions and Issuance of Writs
- Notice of the default judgment was served on Yap on September 1, 1969.
- Yap filed a motion for reconsideration on September 16, 1969—unverified and without affidavit of merits—seeking to reopen for defenses (discrepancy in price, breach of warranty) and amicable settlement.
- The CFI denied that motion on October 10, 1969; on October 15 the court issued a writ of execution.
- Yap’s subsequent “urgent” motion for reconsideration (October 17) and another motion (October 29) were denied on October 23 and January 26, 1970, respectively.
- A further motion for reconsideration filed April 28, 1970 was also denied.
Execution Sale and Suspension Order
- The sheriff levied on the pump and scheduled its sale for November 14, 1969; an order suspending execution was signed November 6, 1969 but not transmitted to the sheriff.
- The pump was auctioned on November 14, 1969 to Goulds as highe