G.R. No. L-56133 - Estabaya vs. Mijares

Petitioner: Antonio Estabaya, who is the defendant in the underlying ejectment case titled “Rosita L. Garcia vs. Antonio Estabaya.”
Respondents:

During the hearing held on July 29, 1980, for the continuation of the reception of petitioner’s evidence in the underlying case, petitioner sought a postponement of the hearing due to the illness and confinement of his counsel.
Petitioner presented an unsworn Certificate of Confinement issued by the counsel’s attending physician, as evidence of the said hospitalization.
The City Court of Manila, Branch VII, denied the request for postponement on the ground that the certificate was not executed under oath and proceeded to submit the case for decision.
On August 7, 1980, petitioner moved to set aside the order and explained the unsworn nature of the certificate was due to the late availability of his counsel’s physician, who could not appear before a Notary Public in time.
Subsequently, petitioner submitted a duly notarized certificate of confinement.
The court rendered an Order on September 30, 1980, denying the motion for postponement for lack of merit, and a similar Order was issued on December 8, 1980, after a subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed.

Petitioner argued that the initial unsworn certificate was understandable under the circumstances and that the later submission of the notarized certificate vindicated the claim of counsel’s confinement.
Evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim included:

The unsworn certificate of confinement.
A deposit slip evidencing the initial deposit of money upon admission of petitioner’s counsel to the hospital.
A notarized medical certificate, executed under oath, confirming the counsel’s confinement at St. Agnes General Hospital until the morning of the scheduled hearing.

Private respondent, Rosita L. Garcia, contended that all postponements were initiated by the petitioner and that there was no valid basis to invoke procedural due process, emphasizing that petitioner was properly notified of all hearings.

The court found that the consolidated evidence established that petitioner’s counsel was indeed confined on the day of the scheduled hearing.
It was held that there was a valid ground for postponement, and the previous postponements requested at the instance of petitioner’s counsel did not bar the grant of a subsequent request when supported by bona fide reasons.

Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the postponement of the hearing when petitioner’s counsel was medically confirmed to be confined.
Whether the unsworn nature of the initial certificate was justifiable given the exigencies of the circumstances and subsequently rectified by a duly notarized certificate.
Whether the petitioner’s repeated requests for postponement, despite previous deferments at his counsel’s instance, should be considered valid in light of the confirmed medical evidence.