G.R. No. L-23687. February 26, 1968.
GO LEA CHU, HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, and THE CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, petitioners, vs. CORAZON GONZALES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Corazon Gonzales was the lessee of a stall in the Manila Shopping Center, which she verbally subleased on a month-to-month basis to respondent Go Lea Chu. On July 25, 1963, Gonzales assigned her leasehold rights to R & R Realty Company for P11,000.00, with P5,500.00 payable to her and the other P5,500.00 payable after the final judgment in Civil Case No. 111371 to the party adjudged entitled. R & R Realty paid P2,000.00 to Go Lea Chu for vacating the stall. When the case was called for hearing on February 28, 1964, Gonzales’s counsel arrived about ten minutes late. Respondent Judge Gaudencio Cloribel dismissed Gonzales’s complaint and ordered an ex-parte hearing on Go Lea Chu’s counterclaim. Counsel immediately filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. On March 2, 1964, Gonzales received a copy of the order and the decision, which dismissed her complaint and ordered her to pay Go Lea Chu one-half of any amount received from R & R Realty plus P900.00 attorney’s fees. On March 9, 1964, Gonzales filed a verified “Second Motion for Reconsideration” directed at the judgment. On May 11, 1964, the judge denied this motion as pro forma. On June 2, 1964, Gonzales filed a notice of appeal and deposited the cash appeal bond. However, on June 5, 1964, an order of execution was issued, and through garnishment, Go Lea Chu collected P3,500.00 from R & R Realty. On June 10, 1964, the judge issued an order granting Gonzales 30 days to file her record on appeal. Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the trial court’s orders and decision, ordered a re-trial, and directed Go Lea Chu to deposit the P3,500.00 with the clerk of court.

ISSUE

1. Whether certiorari was the appropriate remedy for Gonzales.
2. Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint and allowing ex-parte hearing on the counterclaim due to counsel’s ten-minute tardiness.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals had the power to order Go Lea Chu to deposit the P3,500.00 collected from R & R Realty.

RULING

1. Yes, certiorari was the appropriate remedy. While appeal is generally the remedy from a final judgment, the circumstances justified resort to certiorari due to the trial judge’s capricious and whimsical exercise of judicial power amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
2. Yes, the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion. Dismissing the complaint and proceeding ex-parte on the counterclaim for a ten-minute tardiness, where counsel’s delay was due to excusable negligence (attending to other cases in different court branches), was too drastic a sanction. The judge should have been more tolerant, as the tardiness did not show contemptuous disregard. The dismissal with prejudice denied Gonzales her day in court. The motion for reconsideration filed on March 9, 1964, directed at the judgment, was not pro forma as it raised substantive grounds, including mistake or excusable negligence and lack of evidence for the award.
3. Yes, the Court of Appeals had the power to order the deposit. The Court of Appeals, in the exercise of its supervisory power over the Court of First Instance, could correct the error of the premature execution and collection. The court has inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within its jurisdiction. Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court allows a court to employ all auxiliary writs and processes necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect. The order to deposit the money was necessary to restore the status quo and ensure substantial justice.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.