DIGEST/CHERRIE MAE GRANADA/HELEN L. SAY VS. GABRIEL DIZON/2020

 

[ G.R. No. 227457, June 22, 2020 ]

HELEN L. SAY, GILDA L. SAY, HENRY L. SAY, AND DANNY L. SAY, PETITIONERS, VS. GABRIEL DIZON, RESPONDENT.

 

FACTS

          This case stemmed from a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale which dismissal has attained finality. Consequently, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants' Counterclaim for Hearing. However, petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits one day before the scheduled hearing. Thus, respondent opposed the same claiming that the Judicial Affidavits were filed out of time as provided under Section 2 (a)[8] of the JAR, which requires that the same be filed not later than five (5) days before the scheduled hearing.

          The RTC nonetheless allowed the late submission of the Judicial Affidavits pursuant to the rule that technicalities must give way to substantial justice, eventually directing petitioners to pay a fine of P2,500.00 for their late submission.

          Aggrieved, respondent elevated the matter before the CA which gave due course to the petition and set aside the RTC's Orders, holding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it admitted the belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners without proof of compliance with the conditions laid down under Section 10 (a) of the JAR. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this petition.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when the latter admitted petitioners' Judicial Affidavits that were belatedly filed

 

RULING

          The petition is meritorious.

          Although the CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it admitted the belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits, it bears to note that Section 10 (a) does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission of a belatedly filed judicial affidavit. Moreover, the submission of the required judicial affidavits beyond the mandated period may be allowed once provided that the following conditions were complied, namely: (a) that the delay was for a valid reason; (b) it would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (c) the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.

          There is no dispute that petitioners complied with the RTC's directive to pay the fine of P2,500.00 for the late submission of their Judicial Affidavits. With respect to the justification for the delay, petitioners consistently pointed out that they were under the belief that the Notice of Hearing they had received was a mere notification of the hearing, and not the formal order or resolution of the presiding judge. Notwithstanding the delay, the Court observes that petitioners' failure to submit their Judicial Affidavits five (5) days prior was an honest procedural mistake. As the records clearly show, petitioners actually submitted their Judicial Affidavits a day prior to the hearing. While four (4) days late, their submission of the Judicial Affidavits before the hearing itself shows that they had no deliberate intention to flout the rules. Moreover, petitioners' reason for non-compliance was not completely unjustified. As petitioners candidly expressed, the error was made in good faith.

          The Court finds that the RTC did not act in an arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious manner in admitting the subject Judicial Affidavits. What is only apparent is that the RTC exercised its due discretion in relaxing the rigid application of the JAR in the interest of substantial justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more