Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-51101. May 28, 1988.]

RUFINO NAZARETH, DOMINGO NAZARETH, ROMANA ANIANA VDA. DE FERRERA and CESAR FERRERA, Petitioners, v. RENATO S. SANTOS, and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS; ABSENCE OF COUNSEL, NOT A GROUND FOR POSTPONEMENT. — The absence of counsel in agrarian cases is not a ground for postponement or continuance, the denial of the petition for postponement, therefore, was justified. Counsel was duly notified and, in fact, had agreed to the resetting in open Court, which he would not have done if he had other prior Court commitments. Moreover, the plea for postponement was made merely on the very day of hearing and counsel could not rely on the liberality of the Court nor on the generosity of the adverse party.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LIBERALITY IN MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT IN CASE AT BAR, NOT PERMISSIBLE. — While it may be that liberality is permissible in resolving requests for postponement when reasonable and not capricious (Gapoy v. Adil, L-46182, February 28, 1978, 81 SCRA 739), that consideration is inapplicable herein considering that, as found by the respondent Appellate Court, dilatory tactics were resorted to by petitioners-defendants.

3. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION NOT COMMITTED WHERE DENIAL OF REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT PROPER. — Denial of the requested postponement having been proper, it cannot be justifiably argued that the Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting petitioners-defendants’ Motion to be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their defense. Petitioners-defendants gave no inkling whatsoever of the meritoriousness of their defense, neither in the Trial Court nor in the Appellate Court. Considering that the subject matter of the case was simply one for accounting, which basically called for documentary evidence, some indication before said Courts of the merits of their cause could have changed the tide in their favor.

4. ID.; COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS; HAS INHERENT POWER TO CONSIDER CASE SUBMITTED FOR DECISION. — It is erroneous to allege that, in the absence of any specific authorization in the Agrarian Law, the Trial Court was bereft of authority to consider the case submitted for decision. Such a recourse is within the inherent power of the Court and no motion praying for the same need be presented.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


The sole issue for resolution is whether or not respondent Appellate Court committed reversible error in affirming the Order of the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) in Civil Case No. 1304, 1 which denied petitioners-defendants’ Motion for postponement and resetting of the hearing scheduled for that date, and considered the case submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence submitted by private respondent-plaintiff.

The background facts follow:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On 31 July 1977, private respondent, Renato Santos, filed before the CAR, Branch I, Pasig, Metro Manila, an Amended Complaint against the above-named petitioners for accounting (Civil Case No. 1304).

After the Answer was filed and the issues joined, the parties were required to submit their respective Affidavits in support of their claims, the same to constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses to be presented, pursuant to Section 16(4) of Presidential Decree No. 946.

On 28 May 1978, a hearing was hell with private respondent-plaintiff adopting his sworn statement as his direct testimony. However, due to lack of time the hearing was postponed to 28 July 1978 by agreement of the parties.

On 28 July 1978, petitioners-defendants, except petitioner Romana Aniana Vda. de Ferrera, appeared before the Trial Court with a written Motion prepared by their counsel asking for a resetting of the hearing on the ground that counsel had been appointed counsel de oficio for a detention prisoner before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXIX, in Criminal Case No. 36525, for Robbery, and as a witness in Civil Case No. 102236 of the same Court on the same date.

The trial Court denied the Motion in an Order of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, an order is hereby entered in the tenor and disposition hereinbelow provided:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Denying defendant’s ‘Motion to Reset filed with this Court this morning;

2. Granting plaintiff’s motion to consider the cross-examination of plaintiff by counsel for defendants as terminated.

3. Granting plaintiffs motion to consider his right to cross-examine defendants on their affidavit as having been waived;

4. Admitting plaintiff’s offer in evidence of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A-1;’ and

5. Admitting defendant’s affidavit marked Exh.’1’ as direct testimony of said defendants.

Conformably with plaintiff’s manifestation and pursuant to the dispositive part of this order, let this case be, as it is hereby, considered submitted for decision.

It is so ordered.

x       x       x


Petitioners-defendants moved for reconsideration praying that they be accorded the opportunity to adduce their own evidence, which the Trial Court denied.

On appeal, respondent Appellate Court 2 affirmed both Orders. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, which was reassigned to this Division on 15 January 1988.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

The errors attributed to respondent Appellate Court read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


"Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not holding and declaring that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement filed by petitioners.

II


"Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion of the petitioners that the latter be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their defense.

III


"Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not declaring that the trial court has no authority to consider the case submitted for decision."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find no reversible error committed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Presidential Decree No. 946 entitled "Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining their Procedures, and for Other Purposes" reads in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 17. Pleadings; Hearings; Limitation on Postponement. — . . .

. . . Where no such agreement is effected, the Court shall proceed with the trial, which shall be continuous until terminated. The absence of counsel of any or both the parties shall not be a ground for postponement or continuance, provided they were duly notified. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering that the absence of counsel in agrarian cases is not a ground for postponement or continuance, the denial of the petition for postponement, therefore, was justified. Counsel was duly notified and, in fact, had agreed to the resetting in open Court, which he would not have done if he had other prior Court commitments. Moreover, the plea for postponement was made merely on the very day of hearing and counsel could not rely on the liberality of the Court nor on the generosity of the adverse party.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

While it may be that liberality is permissible in resolving requests for postponement when reasonable and not capricious (Gapoy v. Adil, L-46182, February 28, 1978, 81 SCRA 739), that consideration is inapplicable herein considering that, as found by the respondent Appellate Court, dilatory tactics were resorted to by petitioners-defendants.

"It is noteworthy too that prior to the scheduled hearing on July 28, 1978, defendants and their counsel have failed several times to appear at similarly scheduled hearings (CAR Record, pp. 21, 45, 59, 85). The trial court was most liberal in granting them their requests for postponements to give them a chance to interpose and prove their defense. In two of its orders granting continuance (Ibid., pp. 54, 85), the lower court made it clear to the defendants that the postponements are intransferable in character with the warning that the hearing will proceed if they fail to appear. The apparent dilatory tactics of the defendants prompted the trial court to deny their motion for continuance dated July 28, ‘78 and to order the case submitted for decision on plaintiff’s evidence. A plaintiff is as such entitled to speedy justice as the defendants themselves (People v. Mendez, 28 SCRA 881, 889)."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Denial of the requested postponement having been proper, it cannot be justifiably argued that the Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in rejecting petitioners-defendants’ Motion to be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their defense. Petitioners-defendants gave no inkling whatsoever of the meritoriousness of their defense, neither in the Trial Court nor in the Appellate Court. Considering that the subject matter of the case was simply one for accounting, which basically called for documentary evidence, some indication before said Courts of the merits of their cause could have changed the tide in their favor.

3. It is erroneous to allege that, in the absence of any specific authorization in the Agrarian Law, the Trial Court was bereft of authority to consider the case submitted for decision. Such a recourse is within the inherent power of the Court and no motion praying for the same need be presented.

Lastly, Section 17, paragraph 2 of P.D. 946 explicitly enjoins:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 17. . . .

x       x       x


"No order of the Courts of Agrarian Relations any issue, question, matter or incident raised before them shall be contested in any action or proceeding before the appellate courts until the hearing shall have been terminated and the case decided on the merits."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is obvious that counsel for petitioners-defendants had chosen to disregard the foregoing injunction thereby delaying the final resolution of this case unduly contrary to the spirit governing the adjudication of agrarian disputes.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED and this case is hereby REMANDED to the proper Regional Trial Court for resolution of the case on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (C.J.), Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Judge Pastor P. Reyes, presiding.

2. Penned by Justice Crisolito Pascual and concurred in by Justices Carlos, L. Sundiam and Benjamin K. Gorospe.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.