G.R. No. 143440 ; February 11, 2003
SERENA T. BACELONIA, GRACIANO BACELONIA, SR. and GRACIANO T. BACELONIA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. VICTORINO S. BOLOS, JR. and OLIVIA P. BOLOS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Bolos spouses, filed a complaint for damages against petitioners (the Bacelonias) and two other defendants, Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño, arising from a 1993 vehicular accident that caused the death of their daughter. The Bacelonias were sued as the owners/operator and driver of a school shuttle involved in the collision. Prior to this suit, the Bacelonias themselves had filed a separate damages case against Roxas-Cu and Cariño, which was dismissed after the parties entered into a compromise agreement in 1995.
During the trial of the Bolos case, after the plaintiffs rested their case, the Bacelonias filed a motion to be dropped as defendants. They argued that the prior compromise agreement constituted an admission by Roxas-Cu and Cariño of sole responsibility, thus barring the claim against them. The trial court denied this motion. The Bacelonias then filed a motion for reconsideration, set for hearing on February 15, 2000, and a separate motion to cancel the defense’s evidence presentation scheduled for February 3, 2000. The trial court heard the motion to cancel on February 3, and, despite the Bacelonias’ presence, denied both the motion to cancel and their motion for reconsideration on the same day, before its scheduled hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Bacelonias’ certiorari petition, which alleged that the trial court violated their right to due process by denying their motion for reconsideration without hearing it on its scheduled date.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the procedural aspect, the Court clarified that the proper remedy from the Court of Appeals’ resolution was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal under Rule 45, as the core allegation was grave abuse of discretion. On the substantive due process claim, the Court held no violation occurred. Due process is satisfied by a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Bacelonias were present in court on February 3, 2000, for the hearing on their motion to cancel. The trial court, after denying that motion, directed them to argue their motion for reconsideration then and there. They chose not to avail themselves of this opportunity. The denial of the motion for reconsideration was based on its lack of merit, as the prior compromise agreement in a different case did not constitute res judicata or an admission of exclusive liability in the present case filed by a different party (the Bolos spouses). The Bacelonias were afforded, but declined, the chance to be heard; thus, the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion.