GR 30593; (September, 1977) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-30593 September 30, 1977
JOSE T. PASTOR, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO B. ECHAVEZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose T. Pastor was granted a fishpond permit in 1947. In 1953, the Director of Fisheries cancelled his permit for alleged violations. Pastor filed a timely motion for reconsideration, but the Director later declared the cancellation final and gave due course to respondent Francisco B. Echavez’s subsequent application. Pastor appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SANR). After reinvestigation, the SANR, in a 1957 order, reinstated Pastor’s permit, subject to payment of back rentals and reimbursement to Echavez for improvements. The Executive Secretary, on appeal, later relieved Pastor of the reimbursement obligation in a 1959 decision.
Respondents Echavez, et al., filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance (CFI) to annul these administrative orders. On the scheduled hearing date, despite pending motions for postponement filed seasonably by counsel for Pastor and the SANR, the trial court, without resolving these motions and without notice to counsel for the Executive Secretary, proceeded to hear the case ex parte. On the same day, it rendered a decision nullifying the administrative orders and recognizing respondents’ permit.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the ex parte hearing and rendering judgment without resolving the pending motions for postponement, thereby depriving petitioners of their day in court.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and set aside the CFI decision. The Court held that while a trial court has discretion to grant or deny motions for postponement, such power must not be exercised arbitrarily. The motions filed by petitioners were submitted ten days before the hearing on valid grounds of prior court engagements. The lower court’s failure to resolve these motions and its subsequent ex parte proceeding effectively denied petitioners their fundamental right to due process. A party cannot be deprived of their day in court on the mere pretext of a court’s calendar without a ruling on a properly filed motion. Consequently, the judgment rendered under such circumstances is void. The Supreme Court thus upheld the validity of the SANR’s 1957 order reinstating Pastor’s permit. However, it modified the Executive Secretary’s 1959 decision, ordering petitioners to reimburse Echavez for the useful improvements made on the property, consistent with the principles of a possessor in good faith under the Civil Code.