[ G.R. No. L-28505, August 29, 1969 ]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ESTANISLAO PINEDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
From a judgment of the City Court of Manila[1] which reads: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to vacate the premises within six (6) months from receipt of this Decision, provided he pays the rent in arrears in the sum of P149.60 as of April 30, 1967, and updates the payment of rental within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision, provided, however, that defendant shall not be entitled to the said 6-month grace should he fail to make the above-stated payments. Attorney's fees in the amount of P50.00 and costs are assessed against defendant", defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila.[2] Issues having been joined in the latter court, the case was set for pre-trial. After the case was repeatedly called for the scheduled pre-trial on October 20, 1967, the last time at 9:05 a.m., defendant and his counsel failed to appear. The court dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Defendant's efforts at reopening were thwarted below. He came to this Court on appeal.
We vote to affirm. First. Defendant and his counsel's failure to appear is a ground to authorize dismissal for failure to prosecute. The judgment of the inferior court is thus revived.[3] Defendant's excuse for his failure to appear at the scheduled pretrial was that his counsel, Atty. Pompeyo L. Bautista, had withdrawn from the case as his attorney. Correctly did the lower court state that this excuse is "very flimsy."[4] With reason. The record does not bear out such withdrawal. Under the law, notices are given to counsel.[5] Second. Defendant has not shown any valid defense. It is conceded that he is a lessee without a fixed term. This explains the fact that the City Court gave him time to vacate the premises. Nor will his averment that he has a residential house on the land advance his cause. He may not, as he claims, require reimbursement of one-half of the value thereof. Because, the option to acquire the improvements is on the owner of the land.[6] So that reopening of the case will be futile. [7]
Judgment affirmed.
Costs against defendant-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.Barredo, J., concurin the result. See separate opinion.
Reyes, J., is on official leave.
[1] Civil Case 153045, City Court of Manila, entitled "Philippine National Bank, Plaintiff, versus Estanislao Pineda, Defendant."
[2] Civil Case 69965, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch V, entitled "Philippine National Bank, Plaintiff, versus Estanislao Pineda, Defendant."
[3] Section 9, Rule 40, Rules of Court; Vda. de Palanca vs. Chua Deng Klan (1969), 27 SCRA 356, 365.
[4] Record on Appeal, p. 40.
[5] Section 2, Rule 13, Rules of Court.
[6] Article 1678, Civil Code of the Philippines. See: Lapeña vs. Morfe, 101 Phil. 997, 1001.
[7] Cf. De la Cruz vs. Burgos, G.R. No. L-28095, July 30, 1969