G.R. No. L-16778; May 23, 1961
HAP HONG HARDWARE CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE MILLING COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Hap Hong Hardware Co., Inc. filed an action to recover the unpaid balance of P2,084.90 for hardware materials delivered to Philippine Milling Company, which had only paid P200.00 upon delivery. The defendant, in its answer, admitted the purchase and partial payment but denied the allegation that the balance remained unpaid, and it filed a counterclaim for damages. The case underwent multiple postponements initiated by the defendant. Initially set for July 19, 1956, it was moved to October 25, 1956, then to December 6, 1956, and finally to January 3, 1957, due to defendant’s motions citing conflicts with a criminal trial and the milling season.
On January 3, 1957, the defendant again sought a postponement, arguing its officers were indispensable for the milling season in San Jose, Mindoro Occidental. This motion, dated December 29, 1956, was only received by the plaintiff on January 2, 1957. When the case was called, the defendant failed to appear. The trial court denied the postponement, allowed the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for postponement and proceeding with the ex parte hearing, thereby allegedly depriving the defendant of its day in court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that no abuse of discretion occurred. The Court emphasized that the grant or denial of a motion for postponement is discretionary upon the trial court, and such discretion must be exercised wisely to prevent delay and ensure the orderly administration of justice. In this case, the defendant’s pattern of seeking multiple postponements demonstrated an intent to delay the proceedings. Its answer admitted the core facts of the purchase and partial payment, presenting only a general denial of non-payment without asserting a substantial defense.
The reason for the final postponement—the milling season—was not an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstance. The defendant should have anticipated this conflict well in advance and filed its motion earlier to avoid inconveniencing the court and the adverse party. By presenting the motion essentially on the trial date, the defendant failed to exercise due diligence. The trial court, considering the history of delays and the lack of a meritorious defense apparent from the pleadings, acted within its sound discretion in denying the postponement and proceeding with the trial. Therefore, the defendant was not deprived of its day in court, as its own conduct led to the ex parte proceedings.