[ G. R. No. L-17324, April 22, 1963 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CLASICO TAJANLANGIT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, C.J.:
In the justice of the peace court of Miagao, Iloilo, the Republic sued Clasico Tajanlangit to recover P110.88 representing the value of nine sacks of fertilizer, which he had purchased, from the Fertilizer Administration. He refused to pay, alleging false
representations about the benefits to be derived from the use of such fertilizer. He even asserted harmful effects of the fertilizer upon his cropa. The court rendered judgment against him.
On appeal to the court of first instance the same issues were raised. However, due to the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the trial' on two different occasions, the judge dismissed the action for lack of interest, the case having pended in said court for about three years.
The plaintiff asked for reconsideration invoking accident, mistake or excusable negligence. It submitted an affidavit of its attorney who claimed, and swore to the effect, that due to the big volume of papers.turned over to him by the Fertilizer Administration", he did not know of the existence of the case and so he failed to appear and take charge of the litigation.' He swore furthermore that the plaintiff, had a good cause of action.
The judge denied the motion. Plaintiff then took the matter to the Court of Appeals. The latter, believing that only questions of law were involved, certified the record to this Court.
Having read the pertinent papers, we think the trial judge committed no plain abuse of discretion: in refusing to re-open. For one thing, the excusable negligence alleged by plaintiff referred to circumstances arising after the Fertilizer Administration had been abolished, namely in November, 1956, it failed to. account for the non-appearance of plaintiff or its attorney in July 20, 1956, the first time the case was called for hearing. Besides, the affidavit, of merit merely cited the promissory" note, which was already of record, and, which the defendant had signed, upon getting the sacks of fertilizer. Such affidavit obviously added nothing to the plaintiff's cause, is the face of Tajanlangit's. defense that the fertilizer proved to be useless, nay, harmful to his plants.
By the way, contrasting the meager amount of the claim, with the expenses of printing plus the valuable time consumed not only in the preparation of a brief, but specially in the adjudication of the controversy in the appellate courts, which are pressed for time, the idea occurs to us that the Government counsel could have, and should have declined to prosecute this appeal. Judgment affirmed.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Conception, Reyes, J, B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
On appeal to the court of first instance the same issues were raised. However, due to the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the trial' on two different occasions, the judge dismissed the action for lack of interest, the case having pended in said court for about three years.
The plaintiff asked for reconsideration invoking accident, mistake or excusable negligence. It submitted an affidavit of its attorney who claimed, and swore to the effect, that due to the big volume of papers.turned over to him by the Fertilizer Administration", he did not know of the existence of the case and so he failed to appear and take charge of the litigation.' He swore furthermore that the plaintiff, had a good cause of action.
The judge denied the motion. Plaintiff then took the matter to the Court of Appeals. The latter, believing that only questions of law were involved, certified the record to this Court.
Having read the pertinent papers, we think the trial judge committed no plain abuse of discretion: in refusing to re-open. For one thing, the excusable negligence alleged by plaintiff referred to circumstances arising after the Fertilizer Administration had been abolished, namely in November, 1956, it failed to. account for the non-appearance of plaintiff or its attorney in July 20, 1956, the first time the case was called for hearing. Besides, the affidavit, of merit merely cited the promissory" note, which was already of record, and, which the defendant had signed, upon getting the sacks of fertilizer. Such affidavit obviously added nothing to the plaintiff's cause, is the face of Tajanlangit's. defense that the fertilizer proved to be useless, nay, harmful to his plants.
By the way, contrasting the meager amount of the claim, with the expenses of printing plus the valuable time consumed not only in the preparation of a brief, but specially in the adjudication of the controversy in the appellate courts, which are pressed for time, the idea occurs to us that the Government counsel could have, and should have declined to prosecute this appeal. Judgment affirmed.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Conception, Reyes, J, B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.