G.R. No. L-57173 - Advento vs. Mijares

The case originated in Civil Case No. 047427 for ejectment before the City Court of Manila, Branch VII, where petitioner Purificacion V. Advento appeared as the defendant.

At the initial hearing, petitioner and her counsel failed to appear on time due to heavy traffic and a vehicular accident.

Counsel for the private respondent (then plaintiff) moved for the admission of his evidence ex parte, which was granted at 10:00 AM on the same day.

On October 25, 1979, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the ex parte Order issued by Judge Priscilla Mijares, arguing that their late appearance was caused by circumstances beyond their control.

On December 29, 1979, Judge Mijares granted the motion for reconsideration, setting the hearing for March 4, 1980 and stating that “justice would be better served if petitioner is allowed to confront the evidence thus presented and to cross-examine the private respondent.”

On the scheduled hearing of March 4, 1980, petitioner and counsel arrived approximately at 8:45 AM—about 15 minutes after the scheduled start time of 8:30 AM.

Judge Mijares, already occupied with another case, proceeded under a verbal Order informed by the private respondent’s counsel, which effectively deemed that petitioner had waived her right to cross-examine the private respondent.

Despite the petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration on May 10, 1980—citing the necessary attendance in another criminal case as counsel for the accused—the Orders of March 25, 1980 and April 30, 1980 denying such reconsideration were issued for “lack of merit.”

On June 8, 1980, petitioner filed prohibition proceedings with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV, presided over by Judge Ernesto Tengco.

On December 9, 1980, Judge Tengco dismissed the petition for prohibition on the ground that “this Court cannot prohibit the lower court in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. 047427.”

On January 29, 1981, Judge Mijares issued another Order submitting the case for decision after receiving Judge Tengco’s dismissal Order, again disposing of petitioner’s evidence based on the earlier ex parte proceedings.

Petitioner further filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on March 17, 1981 as lacking jurisdiction; a motion for reconsideration of that decision was similarly denied.

Petitioner’s counsel explained that on the morning of March 4, 1980, they had gone to the sala of Judge Emeterio Cui of the Court of First Instance, Branch XXV, to request a “Second Call” in Criminal Cases Nos. 42576 and 42579 (where he was representing the accused), which contributed to the 15-minute delay.

This explanation was supported by a Certification from the Clerk of Court of CFI Branch XXV, confirming the counsel's required appearance in the criminal cases.

Although the petition was denominated as a special civil action for prohibition with prayer for a preliminary injunction, it was in reality a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

It sought (a) to annul and set aside the multiple orders (from March 4, 1980; March 25, 1980; April 30, 1980; and January 29, 1981) and (b) to prohibit Judge Mijares from deciding the case solely on the evidence presented by the private respondent.

Whether Judge Mijares abused her discretion by ruling that a 15-minute tardiness automatically amounted to a waiver of petitioner’s right to cross-examine the private respondent.
Whether the petitioner’s justification for the delay—grounded on circumstances beyond control (heavy traffic, an accident, and a prior court engagement)—was sufficient to warrant the opportunity to present evidence and conduct cross-examination.
Whether the issuance of ex parte relief and subsequent orders by the lower courts was procedurally proper and did not violate the petitioner’s right to due process.
Whether a trial court’s procedural ruling, which effectively precluded the presentation of petitioner’s evidence, should be set aside in favor of a more just and equitable proceeding.