G.R. No. L-16610. May 31, 1963. FRANCISCO JOVELO, petitioner, vs. NASARIA VDA. DE BAUTISTA and THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Jovelo filed a complaint before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) against respondent Nasaria Vda. de Bautista for illegal dispossession of a tenanted land. After the CAR initially dismissed the case for non-appearance of both parties, it was reinstated. The court then set the case for hearing on June 23, 1959, with a warning against postponements. On June 9, 1959, Jovelo filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition, which the court granted in an order dated June 17, 1959. This order admitted the amended petition but directed that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on June 23. It also instructed respondent Bautista to file an answer to the amended petition within the reglementary period. Upon receiving a copy of this order on June 23 itself, Jovelo immediately filed a motion for continuance. When neither party appeared at the hearing that same day, the CAR dismissed the case a second time for failure to prosecute. Jovelo’s motion to lift this dismissal was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute after setting the hearing prematurely, thereby denying petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the CAR’s orders of dismissal. The legal logic centers on procedural irregularity. The CAR Rules required that a case be set for hearing only after the issues are joined upon the filing of the answer. When Jovelo amended the petition, the rules of the Court of First Instance applied suppletorily. Under these rules, after an amendment to a pleading, the adverse party has a period to file a new answer. The issues are joined only upon the filing of that new answer or after the expiration of the period to file it. Here, the CAR’s order of June 17 admitted the amended petition and gave Bautista time to answer. However, it simultaneously insisted on proceeding with the hearing on June 23. This was premature, as Bautista’s period to answer had not even begun—she received notice of the order only on July 13—and no issues were yet joined. Consequently, the scheduled hearing was improper. Furthermore, Jovelo’s counsel had reasonable grounds to believe the hearing would not proceed, having been informed by the Clerk of Court that the trial would be held in abeyance pending resolution of the motion to amend. Jovelo’s prompt motion for continuance upon receiving the order on the very day of the hearing was justified. The dismissal for non-appearance under these circumstances constituted a denial of due process. The case was remanded for further proceedings.