Appeal by  plaintiff  Juan  Bautista from  an order  of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing his petition in civil case No.  1649.

It appears that on  February 19, 1952, plaintiff Bautista filed  in the court  below against  the Municipal  Council and  Mayor  of the municipality  of Mandaluyong, province of Rizal, the following petition:

1. "Comes NOW petitioner, by and through  his undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, most respectively alleges:
   
   
2. That petitioner is of legal age and residing at 1067 Int. 1, Dart, Paco,  Manila, and  that  respondents  are the Municipal Council of . Mandaluyohg, Rizal and Bonifacio Javier, Mayor of the said municipality of Mandaluyong, Bizal,-where they  may both be served with summons;
   
   
3. That petitioner is  engaged' in guard  and watchman  business, duly  licensed  and  doing  business, under the firm  name 'Allied Investigation  Bureau', the  principal office of which  is  at Manila, Philippines;
   
   
4. That on September 22, 1946, the respondent Municipal Council of the municipality of  Mandaluyong, Rizal,  passed and promulgated Ordinance No.  13, series  of 1946, hereto' attached as Annex "A" and made an  integral part  hereof;
   
   
5.  That a portion of section 3 of the said ordinance is as follows: .
   
   * * * * Provided  however,  only  one  Special  Watchmen's Agency shall be granted the exclusive privilege or right to conduct a special watchman's agency within the territorial Jinyts of this municipality subject to the power of the Municipal Mayor to revoke their license in view of  the reasons provided elsewhere in this Ordinance.'
   
   
6. That  said  ordinance wasv  approved by respondent  Bonifacio Javier, as Mayor of the 'Municipality of Mandaluyon£', Rizal;
   
   
7. That  the. aforementioned ordinance, is  invalid,  being1 in viola- tion of the  law;
   
   
8. That  petitioner, being1 engaged  and duly licensed in the guard and watchmen business, has contracted  to guard and has in fact guards  assigned to watch the Wack Wack Golf and .County Club at  Mandaluyong, Rizal;
   
   
9. That  his rights as one engaged  in  Guard and watchmen's business arc affected by the ordinance aforesaid. Wherefore, it is most respectively prayed of  this  Honorable Court, that judgment  be rendered  declaring the Municipal .Ordinance No. 13, series of 1946 of the municipality of Mandaluyong, Rizal  on September 22, 1946, null and void, it being violative of the law."   (Rec.  App., pp.  1-3.)

The defendants, represented by the provincial fiscal, moved on March 14, 1952 for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of lack of a cause of action, or for a bill of particulars for failure of the petition to specify which particular law was allegedly violated  by  the -ordinance in  question. The said motion was set  for hearing on March  19,  1952. On March  17, plaintiff's counsel filed  a written motion to postpone the  hearing of defendants' motion to dismiss  or for a bill of  particulars,  because  he  was to  appear in  a legistration proceeding m  Pampanga  on the  same  date. The Court,  however, denied the motion for postponement in  its  order  of March 19,  1952 and, at the  same  time, planted  defendants' motion  to dismiss  and  ordered  the dismissal  of  the petition.   Plaintiff  moved but  failed  to have the order of dismissal  reconsidered, so he appealed to this court.   For  some reason or another, the  records were sent' to .the Court of Appeals, which forwarded the case to us  for raising only questions of law.

We find no merit in the appeal.

In the first place, the motion was not  made  with the three days' advance notice required by the rules (Rule 26), and the lower  court had discretion to refuse to hear a motion on  shorter notice.

In the second  place, motions  for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we can not consider the lower  court's denial of appellant's motion to postpone an abuse of discretion, for as it correctly held, appellant was represented by the law  firm of Macapagal, Punzalan,  and Yabut;  so the absence of one attorney did not excuse  the failure of another member of the law firm to appear at the date of the hearing.   And even granting that Attorney. Canilao,  was sole counsel for appellant, he had no right to assume that his motion to  postpone would be granted  (specially on less than S days' notice) and should have sent a representative at  the  hearing in his behalf to argue the merits of his  motion for  continuance,  or else, he could have simply submitted a  written, answer or reply to the motion to  dismiss,  or even amended his petition.

In the third place, appellant's petition was correctly dismissed by. the Court below;  for  failure'to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  The rule is that a person who questions the validity of a statute or law must show that he has sustained, or  is in immediate danger of sustaining,  some  direct injury  as  the result  of its  enforcement (Custodio vs. President of Senate, (42 OS. Gat. 1243) November  7,  1945; Manila  Race Horse Trainers' Assn. vs. De la Fuente, (88 Phil., 60)  January 11, 1951). Appellant's petition does not show  that his interests are, or about to be, adversely affected or prejudiced by the enforcement of the ordinance which he claims to be invalid. On  the other hand, it appears  that he  still has a license to engage in the guard and watchman business, and there is no showing of any threat that his license would be revoked or  cancelled.

The order appealed from is affirmed, without prejudice to appellant's right to  file another complaint  alleging  a sufficient cause  of  action.   Costs against  appellant Juan Bautista.  So ordered.

Parás, C. J.,  Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angela,  Labrador,  Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.