G.R. No. L-54169 November 10, 1980
ROSARIO S. QUE, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE MIGUEL R. NAVARRO of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXI; JUDGE RUFINO G. MADARANG of the City Court of Manila, Branch XV and MIGUEL C. ADRIATICO, SR., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosario S. Que was the defendant in an ejectment suit filed by Miguel C. Adriatico, Sr. in the City Court of Manila. Neither Que nor her counsel, Atty. Leonardo Baquizal, appeared at the trial scheduled for January 12, 1978. Upon Adriatico’s motion, the city court allowed him to present evidence ex parte, leading to a judgment against Que. Baquizal had mailed a motion for postponement from Quezon City only five days before the trial; it was received by the court five days after the scheduled hearing. Baquizal later claimed he appeared on the subsequent date set for ex parte presentation, only to find it had already been concluded. His motion for reconsideration was denied for non-compliance with procedural rules.
Que elevated the case, ultimately appealing to the Supreme Court after the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ejectment judgment. The Supreme Court initially dismissed her petition for review via a minute resolution. Atty. Baquizal, in a motion for reconsideration, made allegations that the summary denial could create a “bad impression” and a belief it was based on “considerations other than merit,” and hinted at a “reluctance” by higher courts to correct “abusive actuations” of lower courts.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Leonardo A. Baquizal is guilty of contempt of court for the language used in his motion for reconsideration, and whether petitioner Rosario S. Que was denied procedural due process in the underlying ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Atty. Baquizal guilty of direct contempt. His statements were “abrasive allegations” constituting a “veiled insinuation” that the Court’s denial was motivated by bribery, partiality, or improper considerations, and unjustly branded lower court actions as “abusive.” Such language disrespectfully impugned the Court’s integrity and good faith. The Court emphasized that the volume of its work necessitates summary dismissals for unmeritorious appeals, as held in Salao vs. Salao and In re Almacen.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled Que was not denied due process. The denial resulted solely from Baquizal’s own “negligence and incompetence.” Mailing a postponement request shortly before trial from a distant location, without ensuring its receipt or taking alternative steps like a personal filing or arranging for appearance, constituted a waiver of the right to present evidence. The city court acted properly in proceeding ex parte. The client is bound by counsel’s mistakes. The Court detailed the procedural history to demonstrate the appeal’s lack of merit, noting ejectment cases require expeditious resolution and that Que’s petitions were correctly dismissed by all lower courts. Atty. Baquizal was severely censured for contempt.