Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > January 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-57173 January 17, 1983 - PURIFICACION V. ADVENTO v. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES

205 Phil. 30:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-57173. January 17, 1983.]

PURIFICACION V. ADVENTO, Petitioner, v. HON. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, Presiding Judge of City Court, Manila, Branch VII, Hon. ERNESTO C. TENGCO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV, and GUILLERMO LACHICA, Respondents.

Dominador Ad Castillo for Petitioner.

Basco, Telic & Associates for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS AT LAW; PUNCTUALITY IN COURT ATTENDANCE; TARDINESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES NOT A GROSS DISREGARD OF DUTY. — While tardiness in court attendance is to be discouraged because a lawyer is bound not only to his client, but also to the courts and to the public to be punctual in attendance, (Canon 21, Canons of Professional Ethics) this however is no license for a trial judge to immediately consider the case submitted for decision without the petitioner presenting her evidence just because of tardiness for a very short time occasioned by excusable negligence, properly brought to the attention of the court. At any rate, tardiness for 15 minutes is not such a gross or brazen disregard of his duty to appear on time to merit too severe a penalty or making petitioner suffer so much as losing a hard-earned chance to be heard, for such a short tardiness. (See Gil v. Tabana, 96 Phil. 32, 34).

2. ID.; JUDGES; ESSENTIAL CONDUCT; SUBMISSION OF CASE FOR DECISION WITHOUT PETITIONER’S PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE DUE TO TARDINESS FOR A SHORT TIME; CONSIDERED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; CASE AT BAR. — A judge is enjoined to be temperate and attentive, patient and impartial. It maybe well to sound a reminder that a judge is not a depository of arbitrary power, but one under the sanction of law. (Go Lea Chu v. Gonzales, Et Al., 22 SCRA 766). In the case at bar, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that Judge Priscilla Mijares committed grave abuse of discretion when she issued the Order of March 4, 1980 considering petitioner to have waived her right to cross-examine the private respondent and submitting the case for decision based on the evidence available at hand, just because petitioner and counsel arrived in court 15 minutes late from the scheduled hearing despite petitioner’s presentation of a justifiable reason for the delay.

3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; RULES OF COURT; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE APPLIED. — In the absence of a clear intention to delay, justice is, indeed better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court. (Amberti v. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 240; See also Estebaya v. Mijares, 108 SCRA 98) in line with the decision of this Court in Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Tiongco (12 SCRA 471,475 also cited in Udan vs, Amon, 23 SCRA 837, 841)


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


Petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order and annulment of Orders directed against the Orders dated March 4, 1980, March 25, 1980, April 30, 1980 and January 29, 1981 of the City Court of Manila, Branch VII, in Civil Case No. 047427 for ejectment entitled "Guillermo Lachica v. Purificacion V. Advento" and the Order dated December 9, 1980 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV for prohibition in Civil Case No. 047427.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

It appears that in the initial hearing of said Civil Case No. 047427 in the City of Manila, presided by respondent Judge Priscilla Mijares, where petitioner is the defendant, the latter and her counsel failed to appear on time. Counsel for private respondent (then plaintiff) moved to allow plaintiff to present his evidence ex-parte which was granted on the same date at 10:00 o’clock in the morning. Petitioners filed on October 25, 1979, a motion for reconsideration of said Order of respondent Judge Mijares allowing private respondent to present his evidence ex-parte reasoning that petitioner and counsel’s failure to appear on time is due to heavy traffic and a vehicular traffic accident that prevented them to be present on time. On December 29, 1979, respondent Judge Mijares issued an Order granting petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and setting the hearing of the case for March 4, 1980 stating that "justice would be better served if petitioner is allowed to confront the evidence thus presented and to cross-examine the private Respondent." 1

On March 4, 1980, petitioner and counsel arrived in court at about 8:45 in the morning showing delay of about fifteen (15) minutes as per scheduled time of 8:30 in the morning. Respondent Judge Mijares, then, was already attending to another case. Private respondent and counsel, who were still around, informed the petitioner that the Court, through a verbal Order, had already considered herein petitioner to have waived her right to cross-examine the private respondent, and the case is deemed submitted for decision based on the evidence available at hand.

On May 10, 1980, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of March 4, 1980, offering as reason for their late arrival the fact that "counsel for petitioner had to appear in another case in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXV as counsel for the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 42576 and 42579." The first and second Motion for Reconsideration of said Order were denied in the Orders dated March 25, 1980 and April 30, 1980, respectively, for "lack of merit." Hence, petitioner filed prohibition proceedings on June 8, 1980 with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV, presided by respondent Judge Ernesto Tengco. Under date of December 9, 1980, respondent Judge Tengco issued an order 2 dismissing the petition for prohibition on the ground that "this Court cannot prohibit the lower court in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. 047427."cralaw virtua1aw library

On January 29, 1981, respondent Judge Mijares issued an Order again considering Civil Case No. 047427 submitted for decision after receiving the Order dated December 9, 1980 of respondent Judge Tengco. Petitioner, then, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition which was, however, dismissed on March 17, 1981 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3 Motion for reconsideration of said order was likewise denied. Hence, the present petition, which although denominated as a special civil action for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction, is in reality a petition for certiorari and prohibition since it (a) seeks to annul and set aside the Orders of March 4, 1980, March 25, 1980, April 30, 1980 and January 29, 1981 and (b) seeks to prohibit respondent Judge Mijares from rendering any decision in Civil Case No. 041427 merely based on the evidence presented by private Respondent.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Petitioner’s counsel proferred an explanation for the delay. That on the same morning of March 1980, counsel and petitioner went to the sala of Judge Emeterio Cui of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXV to request for a "Second Call" in Criminal Cases Nos. 42576 and 52579 where counsel appears as counsel for all the accused, so that he could attend to the case before the sala of respondent Judge Mijares. That as proof thereof, counsel for petitioner presented the Certification 4 by the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXV that indeed "on March 4, 1980 counsel appeared in the sala of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXV as counsel for the accused in said Criminal Cases Nos. 42576 and 42579."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, this Court is of the opinion that respondent Judge Mijares committed grave abuse of discretion when she issued the Order of March 4, 1980 considering petitioner to have waived her right to cross-examine the private respondent and submitting the case for decision based on the evidence available at hand, just because petitioner and counsel arrived in court 15 minutes late from the scheduled hearing. Petitioner has presented a justifiable reason for the delay. Petitioner’s counsel may have inadvertently forgotten to take note of the time when he appeared before the sala of CFI Judge Emeterio Cui, but this inadvertence is understandable. Pre-occupation with work on hand could very well induce such lapses. At any rate, tardiness for 15 minutes is not such a gross or brazen disregard of his duty to appear on time to merit too severe a penalty or making petitioner suffer so much as losing hard-earned chance to be heard, for such a short tardiness. 5

While tardiness in court attendance is to be discouraged, because a lawyer is bound "not only to his client, but also to the courts and to the public to be punctual in attendance," 6 this, however, is no license for a trial judge to immediately consider the case submitted for decision without the petitioner presenting her evidence just because of tardiness for a very short time occasioned by excusable negligence, properly brought to the attention of the court. A judge is enjoined to be temperate and attentive, patient and impartial. It may be well to sound a reminder that a judge is not a depository of arbitrary power, but one under the sanction of law. 7

In this case, it may be noted that when respondent Judge Mijares issued the Order of December 29, 1979, granting petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and setting the hearing of the case for March 4, 1980, she said that "justice would be better served if the defendant is given a chance to cross-examine the witness presented by the plaintiff and thereafter to adduce her evidence in support of her defense." Petitioner’s mere tardiness as aforesaid should not be reason enough for a change of mind to overcome a woman’s usually greater kindness of heart. In the absence of a clear intention to delay, justice is, indeed, better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court. 8 What We said in the case of Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Tiongco, 9 may be worth repeating at this juncture, thus —

"Rules of procedure should receive liberal interpretation in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. Procedural technicality should not be made a bar to the vindication of a legitimate grievance. When such technicality deserts from being an aid to justice, the Courts are justified in excepting from its operation a particular case."cralaw virtua1aw library

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Orders of respondent Judge Mijares dated March 4, 1980, March 25, 1980, April 30, 1980 and January 29, 1981 and the Order of respondent Judge Tengco dated December 9, 1980 are hereby set aside and the case is ordered remanded to the trial court for cross-examination of private respondent by petitioner and the reception of petitioner’s evidence in the case below. No costs.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. p. 66, Rollo.

2. Annex "F" to the Petition, p. 21, Rollo.

3. Annex "A" to the Petition, p. 14, Rollo.

4. Annex "C" to the Petition, p. 18, Rollo.

5. See Gil v. Tabaña, 96 Phil. 32, 34.

6. Canon 21, Canons of Professional Ethics.

7. Go Lea Chu v. Gonzales, Et. Al. 22 SCRA 766.

8. Amberti v. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 240; See also Estebaya v. Mijares, 108 SCRA 98.

9. 12 SCRA 471, 475, also cited in Udan v. Amon, 23 SCRA 837, 841.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-49580 January 17, 1983 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

    205 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-55130 January 17, 1983 - PEDRO SANTOS TO v. ERNANI CRUZ-PAÑO

    205 Phil. 8

  • G.R. No. L-56591 January 17, 1983 - MA. LOURDES T. CRUZ v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

    205 Phil. 14

  • G.R. No. L-56751 January 17, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO OLIVERIO

    205 Phil. 19

  • G.R. No. L-57173 January 17, 1983 - PURIFICACION V. ADVENTO v. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES

    205 Phil. 30

  • G.R. No. L-58006 January 17, 1983 - MAXIMIANO TUASON v. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR.

    205 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-61153 January 17, 1983 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

    205 Phil. 41

  • G.R. No. L-61247 January 17, 1983 - ROMAN PEÑAFLOR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    205 Phil. 44

  • G.R. No. L-61304 January 17, 1983 - LETICIA G. ACUÑA v. HERMINIGILDO C. CRUZ

    205 Phil. 47

  • G.R. No. L-61498 January 17, 1983 - DEMETRIO G. VILLA v. FEDERICO A. LLANES, JR.

    205 Phil. 55

  • G.R. No. L-32905 January 21, 1983 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. AGO TIMBER CORP.

    205 Phil. 58

  • G.R. No. 36098 January 21, 1983 - ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. JOSE B. HERRERA

    205 Phil. 61

  • G.R. No. L-40757 January 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARTE MACARIOLA

    205 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-28360 January 27, 1983 - C & C COMMERCIAL CORP. v. ANTONIO C. MENOR, ET AL.

    205 Phil. 84

  • G.R. No. L-28581 January 27, 1983 - SOLEDAD O. SAN AGUSTIN v. CAROLINA OROZCO

    205 Phil. 97

  • G.R. No. L-29428 January 27, 1983 - LAND AUTHORITY v. ROSENDO DE LEON

    205 Phil. 99

  • G.R. No. L-29594 January 27, 1983 - BARTOLOME CLARIDAD v. ARTURO B. SANTOS

    205 Phil. 107

  • G.R. No. L-29725 January 27, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    205 Phil. 113

  • G.R. No. L-32271 January 27, 1983 - MARCIAL COSTIN v. LOPE C. QUIMBO

    205 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-32762 January 27, 1983 - CRISTINA PENULLAR v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    205 Phil. 127

  • G.R. No. L-33983 January 27, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO

    205 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-34529 January 27, 1983 - MAXIMO MARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 147

  • G.R. No. L-34906 January 27, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. SILVESTRE BR. BELLO

  • G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ABRAHAM P. VERA, ET AL.

    205 Phil. 164

  • G.R. No. L-35780 January 27, 1983 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

    205 Phil. 173

  • G.R. No. L-36731 January 27, 1983 - VICENTE GODINEZ v. FONG PAK LUEN

    205 Phil. 176

  • G.R. No. L-38348 January 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ONAVIA

    205 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-39806 January 27, 1983 - LUIS RIDAD v. FILIPINAS INVESTMENT and FINANCE CORP.

    205 Phil. 197

  • G.R. No. L-43473 January 27, 1983 - HERMENEGILDO ENRIQUEZ v. REMIGIO E. ZARI

    205 Phil. 205

  • G.R. No. L-45396 January 27, 1983 - JOHNNY BUSTILLOS v. AMADO INCIONG

    205 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-48612 January 27, 1983 - CRESENCIO ESPEJO v. MARTINO MALATE

    205 Phil. 216

  • G.R. No. L-50276 January 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL J. BUTLER

    205 Phil. 228

  • G.R. No. L-56261 January 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO MANIMTIM

    205 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-59068 January 27, 1983 - JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    205 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-62037 January 27, 1983 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. BLAS F. OPLE

    205 Phil. 291

  • G.R. No. L-28971 January 28, 1983 - ARLEO E. MAGTIBAY v. SANTIAGO GARCIA

    205 Phil. 307

  • G.R. No. L-32522 January 28, 1983 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. LEONOR GONZALES

    205 Phil. 312

  • G.R. No. L-39152 January 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO CASTILLO

    205 Phil. 317

  • G.R. No. L-51791 January 28, 1983 - PURIFICACION ALARCON v. ABDULWAHID BIDIN

    205 Phil. 324

  • G.R. No. L-56545 January 28, 1983 - BERT OSMEÑA & ASSOCIATES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 328

  • G.R. No. L-56605 January 28, 1983 - ANDRES C. SARMIENTO v. CELESTINO C. JUAN

    205 Phil. 335

  • G.R. No. L-56699 January 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO TAMAYAO

    205 Phil. 344

  • G.R. No. L-60819 January 28, 1983 - LAMBERTO DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    205 Phil. 352

  • G.R. No. L-30615 January 31, 1983 - ANCHORAGE WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BISLIG BAY LUMBER CO., INC., ET AL.

    205 Phil. 371

  • G.R. No. L-31683 January 31, 1983 - ERNESTO M. DE GUZMAN v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

    205 Phil. 373

  • G.R. No. L-35385 January 31, 1983 - ALFREDO DE LA FUENTE v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    205 Phil. 380

  • G.R. No. L-35796 January 31, 1983 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

    205 Phil. 388

  • G.R. No. L-35960 January 31, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL P. BACANI

    205 Phil. 400

  • G.R. No. L-38715 January 31, 1983 - JESUS A. TAPALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 401

  • G.R. No. L-47675-76 January 31, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO DOMEN

    205 Phil. 412

  • G.R. No. L-50998 January 31, 1983 - FELIPE V. CRUZ v. ISAAC S. PUNO, JR.

    205 Phil. 422

  • G.R. No. L-56171 January 31, 1983 - NIDA GABA v. JOSE P. CASTRO

    205 Phil. 429

  • G.R. No. L-58321 January 31, 1983 - JOSE V. PANES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    205 Phil. 433

  • G.R. No. L-59750 January 31, 1983 - BENGUET CORP. v. JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.

    205 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-60316 January 31, 1983 - VIOLETA ALDAY, ET AL. v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON, ET AL.

    205 Phil. 444

  • G.R. No. L-61770 January 31, 1983 - JOSE S. BAGCAL v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    205 Phil. 447