Case Digest (G.R. No. 227457)
Facts:
Helen L. Say, Gilda L. Say, Henry L. Say, and Danny L. Say, Petitioners, v. Gabriel Dizon, Respondent, G.R. No. 227457, June 22, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
This case arose from a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale filed by Gabriel Dizon against Robert Dizon and the four Says before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1973-24. The RTC initially dismissed Civil Case No. 1973-24 for forum shopping in an Order dated November 23, 2011 after it was shown that respondent had filed a similar action in Civil Case No. 1263-25 involving the same subject matter.
After the dismissal attained finality, the petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants' Counterclaim for Hearing. A Notice of Hearing dated November 25, 2013 (signed by the Branch Clerk) set a hearing for March 13, 2014. Believing the notice to be a mere notification rather than a formal grant of their ex parte motion, petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014—one day before the scheduled hearing. Respondent opposed, contending the affidavits were untimely under Section 2(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), which requires filing not later than five days before the scheduled hearing.
In an Order dated September 2, 2014, the RTC admitted petitioners' Judicial Affidavits despite their lateness, invoking the principle that technicalities yield to substantial justice. On reconsideration, the RTC, by Order dated April 1, 2015, reiterated that stance but imposed a P2,500.00 fine pursuant to Section 10(a) of the JAR for late submission.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 06840. In a Decision dated May 13, 2016, the CA granted the petition and set aside the RTC Orders, holding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in admitting the belated affidavits because petitioners had not shown compliance with the conditions in Section 10(a) of the JAR aside from paying the fine. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolutio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in admitting the belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners for noncompliance with Section 10(a) of the Judicial Af...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)