G.R. No. 227457 - Say vs. Dizon

The case originated from a complaint filed by respondent Gabriel Dizon against one Robert Dizon and the petitioners (Helen L. Say, Gilda L. Say, Henry L. Say, and Danny L. Say) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1973-24. The complaint sought the Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on November 23, 2011, on the ground of forum shopping since the respondent had a similar case with the same subject matter pending before the court in Civil Case No. 1263-25.

Following the dismissal, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants’ Counterclaim for Hearing.
A Notice of Hearing dated November 25, 2013, informed the parties that the hearing was set for March 13, 2014. Petitioners understood it only as a notification and thus filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, one day before the hearing.
Respondent opposed the Judicial Affidavits, arguing that they were filed beyond the required period of five (5) days before the hearing as mandated by Section 2(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR).
The RTC directed the parties to file position papers regarding the issue. Petitioners contended that the May 13, 2014 hearing was for their ex-parte motion, not yet the counterclaim hearing, which meant the five-day filing requirement had not yet begun.

In an Order dated September 2, 2014, the RTC admitted petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits despite their late submission, highlighting the principle that technicalities must give way to substantial justice.
Respondent moved for reconsideration which the RTC denied on April 1, 2015, but modified the order by imposing a fine of P2,500.00 for the late submission, referencing Section 10(a) of the JAR allowing one-time late submission subject to conditions.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which on May 13, 2016, set aside the RTC’s orders, ruling that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in admitting the belated Judicial Affidavits without proof of compliance with all conditions under Section 10(a) of the JAR.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by CA on August 24, 2016, prompting the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in admitting the late-filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners in violation of the mandated conditions under Section 10(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.