G.R. No. 167103 August 31, 2006
MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA, AFP (RET.), Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic, through the Ombudsman, filed a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property under Republic Act No. 1379 against petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia and his family before the Sandiganbayan. On the last day to file an answer, Garcia filed a Motion to Dismiss, primarily challenging the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over such forfeiture petitions. Simultaneously, he filed a petition for certiorari ( G.R. No. 165835 ) before the Supreme Court raising the same jurisdictional issue. The Republic moved to expunge the Motion to Dismiss, arguing it contained a defective notice of hearing set beyond the 10-day period prescribed by Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, rendering it a mere “scrap of paper” that did not toll the period to answer. The Republic further sought to declare Garcia in default.
The Sandiganbayan, in its Resolution dated January 20, 2005, denied the Motion to Dismiss, declared Garcia in default for failure to file a valid answer, and set the case for ex parte reception of evidence. It ruled that the defective motion did not interrupt the reglementary period. Garcia’s motion for reconsideration, which included a belated answer, was denied. He then filed the instant petition, arguing the Sandiganbayan should have deferred proceedings due to the pending G.R. No. 165835 .

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioner in default and proceeding with the forfeiture case despite the pendency of G.R. No. 165835 before the Supreme Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan. The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s application of procedural rules. First, Garcia’s Motion to Dismiss was fatally defective for non-compliance with the mandatory notice of hearing requirements under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15. A motion with such a defect is considered a “useless piece of paper” that does not interrupt the time to file an answer. Consequently, Garcia’s failure to file a proper answer within the reglementary period justified the declaration of default.
Second, the Sandiganbayan correctly proceeded with the case despite the pending petition in G.R. No. 165835 . The principle of judicial courtesy, which may warrant suspension of lower court proceedings, applies only when the continuation of such proceedings would render the issue before the higher court moot or academic. Here, the Supreme Court noted that the jurisdictional question in G.R. No. 165835 —whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over forfeiture cases—remained viable for resolution regardless of the progress of the trial. The Sandiganbayan’s continuation of proceedings, including the ex parte reception of evidence, would not pre-empt the Supreme Court’s ruling on jurisdiction. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan acted within its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and refusing to defer the case.