Case Summary (G.R. No. 227457)
Factual Background
Respondent filed the complaint in Civil Case No. 1973-24 seeking the Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale. In an Order dated November 23, 2011, the RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of forum shopping, after it was shown that respondent had earlier filed a similar complaint, Civil Case No. 1263-25, involving the same subject matter, issue, and relief. After the dismissal order became final, 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. Petitioners claimed that this notice was merely a notification of the hearing and not a formal order approving their motion. Accordingly, they filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, one day before the scheduled hearing. Respondent opposed, asserting that 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 with respect to motions and incidents.
The RTC eventually directed the parties to file their respective position papers. Petitioners argued that the March 13, 2014 hearing was for their ex-parte motion and not yet the hearing of the counterclaim itself, thus contending that the five-day period under the JAR had not started to run.
RTC Proceedings and Orders on Late Judicial Affidavits
In an Order dated September 2, 2014, the RTC admitted the petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits. The RTC reasoned that the Notice of Hearing already confirmed that on March 13, 2014, petitioners’ counterclaim would be heard. Nevertheless, it allowed the late submission under the principle that “correct to technicalities must give way to substantial justice.”
Respondent moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied the same in an Order dated April 1, 2015. The RTC reiterated that technicalities should yield to substantial justice and cited Section 10(a) of the JAR to justify allowing the late submission. The RTC modified its earlier order by requiring petitioners to pay a fine of P2,500.00 for the late filing.
CA Proceedings Under Rule 65
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. In a Decision dated May 13, 2016, the CA gave due course to the petition and set aside the RTC’s September 2, 2014 and April 1, 2015 Orders. The CA held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by admitting the belated Judicial Affidavits without proof that petitioners complied with all the conditions in Section 10(a) of the JAR, namely: (a) the delay was for a valid reason; (b) it would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (c) the defaulting party pays the specified fine. The CA noted that aside from paying the fine, petitioners failed to demonstrate compliance with the first two conditions.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 24, 2016, prompting the present petition.
Issues for Resolution
The essential issue before the Court was whether the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when the RTC admitted petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits despite their belated submission.
Legal Framework: The JAR on Timeliness and Late Submission
The Supreme Court discussed Section 2(a) of the JAR, which requires that the parties file and serve their Judicial Affidavits and exhibits not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents. The Court also cited Section 10(a) of the JAR, which provides that failure to submit on time is deemed a waiver, but the court may allow only once the late submission if: (1) the delay is for a valid reason; (2) it would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (3) the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at the court’s discretion.
The Court emphasized that Section 10(a) does not impose a blanket prohibition on the acceptance of a belatedly filed Judicial Affidavit. It permits allowance if the statutory conditions are met.
The Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that the CA erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC.
Application to the Case: Valid Reason and Lack of Undue Prejudice
There was no dispute that petitioners complied with the third condition under Section 10(a): they paid the RTC’s imposed fine of P2,500.00 for the late submission.
The remaining questions concerned the first two conditions: (a) whether the delay was for a valid reason; and (b) whether the admission would unduly prejudice respondent. Petitioners claimed they had been under a good faith belief that the Notice of Hearing was only a notification and not yet the formal approval of their ex-parte motion. They argued that only the trial judge could formally approve or deny a motion, and they pointed out that the notice did not expressly require the submission of Judicial Affidavits nor mention the consequence of non-compliance. The Court acknowledged that the RTC and CA correctly concluded that the Notice of Hearing effectively set the counterclaim for the March 13, 2014 hearing. Yet the Court observed that the four-day delay in filing, while technically non-compliant with the five-day requirement, was attributable to an honest procedural mistake.
The Court noted that petitioners submitted their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, only one day before the hearing date, which meant the delay was not characterized as deliberate flouting of the rules. In addition, the Court credited the contextual justification petitioners offered, finding that counsel’s misconception was made in good faith given the notice’s wording and the absence of an explicit directive on the filing of Judicial Affidavits and the consequences of non-compliance.
On undue prejudice, the Court found that admission did not unduly prejudice respondent. On March 13, 2014, the RTC had not yet allowed the presentation of evidence. The reception of petitioners’ testimonies occurred only later, on April 14, 2015. The Court stressed that Judicial Affidavits serve as evidence of petitioners to prove their counterclaim. Their admission did not automatically entitle petitioners to the counterclaim; respondent would still be allowed to present evidence to controvert the same and the RTC would still rule on the counterclaim based on the totality of the evidence.
The Court further pointed out that respondent actually submitted rebuttal evidence, which negated any supposed prejudice that might have arisen from the admission of petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits.
Standard for Grave Abuse of Discretion in Certiorari
In addressing the CA’s
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227457)
- The petitioners, Helen L. Say, Gilda L. Say, Henry L. Say, and Danny L. Say, sought review on certiorari to assail the Court of Appeals rulings that set aside Regional Trial Court of Koronadal City, South Cotabato, Branch 24 orders admitting their belated Judicial Affidavits.
- The respondent, Gabriel Dizon, opposed the belated submission of the petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits and insisted on strict compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR).
- The case arose in Civil Case No. 1973-24 where the respondent filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the petitioners later asserted counterclaims through the reception of testimonial evidence via Judicial Affidavits.
- The Supreme Court resolved whether the CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion attributable to the RTC for admitting the petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits despite non-compliance with the JAR.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The respondent filed a complaint in the RTC and it was later dismissed for forum shopping in an Order dated November 23, 2011.
- After finality of the dismissal, the petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants’ Counterclaim for Hearing.
- The parties received a Notice of Hearing dated November 25, 2013 setting the matter on March 13, 2014.
- The petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, which the respondent characterized as late under the JAR.
- The RTC admitted the petitioners’ Judicial Affidavits through an Order dated September 2, 2014, and later denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated April 1, 2015.
- The respondent instituted a Rule 65 petition in the CA, which granted relief by setting aside the RTC orders.
- The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 24, 2016, prompting the petitioners to file the present petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- The respondent’s Declaration of Nullity complaint in Civil Case No. 1973-24 was dismissed on the ground of forum shopping after it was shown that a similar complaint had been filed in Civil Case No. 1263-25 involving the same subject matter, issue, and relief.
- After the dismissal became final, the petitioners moved to set their counterclaim for hearing and were informed through the Notice of Hearing dated November 25, 2013 that the hearing would be conducted on March 13, 2014.
- Petitioners believed the Notice of Hearing was only a notification and not a formal order or resolution that triggered the requirement to file Judicial Affidavits in accordance with the JAR.
- Petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, or one day before the scheduled hearing, while the respondent argued that the Judicial Affidavits were required no later than five days before the scheduled hearing.
- The RTC treated the notice as sufficient to indicate that the counterclaim hearing would be set for March 13, 2014, yet it still allowed the late filing under the substantial justice framework.
- The Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ filing was a brief four-day delay, not a deliberate attempt to flout the rules.
- The decision noted that the RTC later conducted the actual reception of petitioners’ testimonies on April 14, 2015, and that respondent submitted rebuttal evidence.
Issues for Determination
- The core issue was whether the CA erred in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it admitted petitioners’ belated Judicial Affidavits.
- The determination required assessing whether the RTC properly applied Section 10 (a) of the JAR, particularly the conditions that: (a) the delay had a valid reason; (b) the opposing party would not be unduly prejudiced; and (c) a fine was paid.
- The case also required evaluating the effect of petitioners’ good faith belief regarding what the Notice of Hearing required under the JAR.
Applicable Legal Framework
- The petition for certiorari required the Court to ascertain whether the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
- Section 2 (a) of the JAR required the parties to file with the court and serve on the adverse party the Judicial Affidavits and exhibits not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
- Section 10 (a) of the JAR provided that failure to submit the Judicial Affidavits and exhibits on time was deemed a waiver, but the court could allow only once the late submission if three conditions were met: the delay was for a valid reason, the delay would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party paid a fine.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 10 (a) did not impose a blanket prohibition on belated submission, since it allowed late filing upon satisfaction of the specified conditions.
- The decision cited Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio for the standard that grave abuse of discretion must be patent and gross, amounting to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
- The decision relied on Spouses Sibay v. Spouses Bermudez and Ong Lim Sing. Jr. v. FEB Leasing & Finance Corporation to sup