G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968
FEDERICO CAÑETE and PEDRO RUDAS, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR and GANLAY AMBAN, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ganlay Amban filed a complaint for possession and damages against petitioners Federico Cañete and Pedro Rudas on January 29, 1960. Amban alleged that Cañete entered a five-hectare portion of his land in May 1957 under a lease agreement with an annual rental of P50.00 per hectare, but after a good harvest in 1958, Cañete refused to pay and started asserting ownership. Rudas was implicated as Cañete’s tenant. Petitioners, in their answer, claimed Cañete purchased the land from Amban in 1953, with a deed executed in 1955. When the case was called for hearing on October 18, 1962, petitioners and their counsel failed to appear. The court directed that plaintiff’s evidence be taken ex parte. The lower court rendered a decision on November 23, 1962, finding that Cañete, a school teacher, through fraud, made Amban, an unlettered non-Christian Subano, execute a deed of absolute sale disguised as a lease contract. The court noted the document lacked the required approval of the Provincial Governor for conveyances by non-Christian tribe members. It ordered petitioners to vacate the land, restore possession to Amban, and pay damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners received a copy of the judgment on December 10, 1962. Prior to this, on November 27, 1962, petitioners filed an unverified motion to reconsider the October 18 order and to set the case for trial, citing counsel’s telegraphic request for postponement due to medical operations for his wife and himself. This motion was denied on February 15, 1963. Amban moved for execution on January 24, 1963, which was initially denied but later granted on March 22, 1963, after reconsideration. Petitioners filed a petition for relief on April 22, 1963, which was denied on May 13, 1963. The case is now before the Supreme Court on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of October 18, 1962 (directing ex parte hearing), February 15, 1963 (denying motion for reconsideration), and March 22, 1963 (granting execution), and in rendering the decision of November 23, 1962.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of case readiness, the Court found that the lack of a commissioner’s report on land relocation, ordered earlier, did not deprive the court of power to hear and decide the case, especially since Cañete’s answer did not dispute possession of the identified land portion. On the justification for proceeding with the October 18 hearing, the Court ruled that petitioners’ counsel was negligent. Despite receiving notice on September 25, 1962, and leaving for Cebu on October 2, he made no timely arrangements for postponement, even after his wife’s operation on October 5 and his own on October 10. He failed to notify adverse counsel and only sent a last-minute telegraphic request without proof of service. The court had previously granted several postponements at counsel’s instance, and the policy against undue delay justified proceeding. Counsel’s further inaction after leaving the hospital on October 16 and until his motion on November 27 compounded the negligence. The Court also noted that the petition for relief was improper as it sought to set aside an interlocutory order (the default order) which could be addressed by motion at any time before final judgment, not under Rule 38. Furthermore, the decision on the merits correctly applied the law requiring provincial governor’s approval for conveyances by non-Christian tribe members, rendering the purported sale void. Thus, no abuse of discretion was found, and the petition was denied with costs against petitioners.