Case Summary (G.R. No. 227457)
Petitioners
The petitioners are the four SAYS who were defendants and counterclaimants in Civil Case No. 1973-24 before the RTC; they filed judicial affidavits in support of their counterclaim one day before a scheduled hearing.
Respondent
Gabriel Dizon filed the complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale against Robert Dizon and the petitioners. He opposed the belated filing of petitioners’ judicial affidavits and elevated the matter to the CA by way of certiorari after the RTC admitted those affidavits.
Key Dates
Notable dates in the litigation: RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 1973-24 for forum shopping on November 23, 2011; a Notice of Hearing was issued November 25, 2013; the hearing was set for March 13, 2014; petitioners filed their judicial affidavits on March 12, 2014 (one day before hearing and four days beyond the five-day rule); the RTC admitted the affidavits by Order dated September 2, 2014 and denied reconsideration on April 1, 2015 (with a P2,500 fine imposed); the CA set aside those RTC orders in a Decision dated May 13, 2016 and denied reconsideration August 24, 2016; the Supreme Court resolution reversing the CA was rendered on June 22, 2020.
Applicable Law
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post‑1990). Controlling procedural rules and authorities: Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12‑08‑08‑SC, effective January 1, 2013), specifically Section 2(a) (requiring filing and service of judicial affidavits and exhibits not later than five days before pre‑trial, preliminary conference, or scheduled hearing for motions and incidents) and Section 10(a) (effect of non‑compliance and permitting a single late submission provided three conditions are satisfied). Also relevant are certiorari principles under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and the doctrine on grave abuse of discretion.
Facts
Respondent’s complaint was initially dismissed for forum shopping. After finality of dismissal, petitioners sought leave to set their counterclaim for hearing; the Branch Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Hearing fixing March 13, 2014. Petitioners’ counsel construed the notice as a mere notification and not a formal grant of the ex‑parte motion; consequently, petitioners filed judicial affidavits on March 12, 2014—four days late under the five‑day requirement of Section 2(a). Respondent objected that the affidavits were untimely. The RTC ordered position papers and ultimately admitted petitioners’ judicial affidavits, later imposing a P2,500 fine for the late filing.
RTC Ruling
In Orders dated September 2, 2014 and April 1, 2015 the RTC admitted the late judicial affidavits and required petitioners to pay a fine of P2,500.00. The RTC justified admission under the principle that technicalities must yield to substantial justice and invoked Section 10(a) of the JAR as authority to allow a late filing once, subject to the conditions enumerated therein.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and set aside the RTC’s orders, finding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by admitting the belated judicial affidavits without establishing compliance with all three Section 10(a) conditions: (a) valid reason for delay, (b) absence of undue prejudice to the opposing party, and (c) payment of the prescribed fine. The CA concluded that, aside from the fine, petitioners had not shown the other conditions were met.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the CA erred in holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting the petitioners’ belated judicial affidavits in the absence of proof that all Section 10(a) conditions were satisfied.
Supreme Court Ruling — Summary of Holding
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Court reaffirmed that certiorari requires a showing of grave abuse so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to act in contemplation of law. Applying Section 2(a) and Section 10(a) of the JAR, the Court observed that Section 10(a) does not categorically prohibit late submission but allows one late filing if three conditions are fulfilled. The Court found petitioners had paid the fine and that the remaining two conditions were satisfied in the circumstances: the delay was a bona fide, minimal procedural mistake (four days late) resulting from reasonable confusion over the character of the notice of hearing, and the allowance of the affidavits did not unduly prejudice respondent because no presentation of evidence occurred at the March 13, 2014
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 227457)
Case Caption and Nature of Petition
- Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assailing:
- Decision dated May 13, 2016 and Resolution dated August 24, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06840.
- The CA had set aside the Orders dated September 2, 2014 and April 1, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Koronadal City, Branch 24, in Civil Case No. 1973-24.
- Central contention: the RTC allegedly gravely abused its discretion in allowing the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits of petitioners Helen, Gilda, Henry, and Danny Say despite asserted non-compliance with the conditions under Section 10(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR).
- Source of the decision: 874 Phil. 782; G.R. No. 227457; Decision penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe; concurred in by Justices Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos; Justice Gaerlan on leave and designated additional member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.
Facts
- Underlying action: Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale filed by respondent Gabriel Dizon against Robert Dizon and petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 1973-24 before the RTC.
- Prior disposition: On November 23, 2011, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 1973-24 for forum shopping because respondent had filed a similar complaint (Civil Case No. 1263-25) involving the same subject matter, issue, and relief.
- Post-dismissal events:
- After dismissal attained finality, 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 of Court, informed the parties that the case was set for hearing on March 13, 2014.
- Judicial Affidavits filing dispute:
- Petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014 (one day before the scheduled hearing).
- Respondent opposed, arguing the Judicial Affidavits were filed out of time under Section 2(a) of the JAR, which requires filing not later than five (5) days before the scheduled hearing.
- Petitioners’ position: they claimed the Notice of Hearing was a mere notification of the hearing of their ex-parte motion, not a formal order or resolution granting the motion; hence the five-day period for filing Judicial Affidavits had not begun to run.
- Procedural interim: the RTC directed the parties to file respective position papers prior to resolution.
RTC Orders (Trial Court Disposition)
- Order dated September 2, 2014:
- The RTC admitted the Judicial Affidavits of petitioners.
- The RTC concluded the Notice of Hearing was confirmation that the March 13, 2014 date would proceed to hear petitioners’ counterclaim, but nonetheless allowed the late submission pursuant to the principle that “technicalities must give way to substantial justice.”
- Motion for reconsideration and subsequent order:
- Respondent moved for reconsideration (motion dated January 22, 2015).
- RTC denied reconsideration in Order dated April 1, 2015.
- RTC reiterated that technicalities must give way to substantial justice and cited Section 10(a) of the JAR as authority to allow late submission.
- As a condition for allowing the late submission, the RTC directed petitioners to pay a fine of P2,500.00.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Decision dated May 13, 2016:
- The CA granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the RTC Orders of September 2, 2014 and April 1, 2015.
- The CA held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in admitting the belated Judicial Affidavits without proof of compliance with the conditions under Section 10(a) of the JAR.
- The CA emphasized the three conditions under Section 10(a): (a) delay for a valid reason; (b) no undue prejudice to the opposing party; and (c) payment of the specified fine.
- The CA found that, other than payment of the fine, petitioners failed to show compliance with the remaining conditions.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated August 24, 2016, prompting the present petition to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it admitted petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits that were filed belatedly.
Governing Rules and Provisions (Judicial Affidavit Rule excerpts as provided)
- Section 2(a), JAR — Submission schedule:
- Parties shall file and serve the judicial affidavits of their witnesses and documentary/object evidence “not later th