G.R. No. L-23718 March 13, 1968
JUSTINO LUCERO, petitioner, vs. JUDGE LEON P. DACAYO of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Eighth Judicial District, Branch I, Lucena City, LORETO UMALI, VICTORINO UMALI, SERGIO UMALI, FELIMON UMALI and LORENZO LECTOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Justino Lucero, claiming to be a tenant of a portion of coconut land owned by the Umali respondents, filed a petition in the Court of Agrarian Relations for various reliefs, including desistance from ejectment, delivery of his share of harvests, and a reliquidation of past harvests. After the respondents filed their answer, the case was set for a pre-trial conference. On the scheduled date, August 6, 1964, at 9:30 a.m., petitioner was not present, although his counsel and the other parties were. Upon his counsel’s assurance that petitioner would come, the court declared a recess. When the session resumed at 10:00 a.m. and petitioner was still absent, the judge granted the respondents’ verbal motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, accompanied by petitioner’s sworn statement explaining his failure to arrive on time. He stated he was a sick man, had to walk three kilometers from his barrio, the road was flooded from rain, and the bus he took made frequent stops, causing him to arrive after 10:00 a.m. The court denied the motion, ruling that while the late arrival was excusable, the affidavit of merits failed to state the valid cause of action petitioner intended to prove, as required by Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner then instituted this certiorari proceeding, charging the respondent Judge with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case for petitioner’s failure to appear at the pre-trial, based on non-compliance with the affidavit of merits requirement under Rule 37.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion. The petition is meritorious. The denial of the motion for reconsideration for non-compliance with Rule 37 was erroneous. First, requiring the affidavit to state the cause of action was unnecessary as it was already pleaded in the complaint. Second, the provisions of Rule 37 on New Trial govern motions to set aside a judgment already rendered after a case has been submitted for decision and a judgment reached, seeking a new trial to reverse or modify that judgment. In this case, the proceeding had not gone beyond the pre-trial stage; no evidence had been adduced. A postponement of the pre-trial would not have caused the respondents irreparable prejudice. The dismissal was unjustified as the court itself found the failure to appear excusable. The motion was a simple pleading for reconsideration of a non-suit order and needed only to show the cause for the failure to appear, not an affidavit of merits under Rule 37. Considering the exercise of discretion and the principle of protection for the disadvantaged under Article 24 of the Civil Code, there was a patent abuse of discretion in denying the meritorious motion. Certiorari is proper as an ordinary appeal is an inadequate remedy due to delay. The writ of certiorari is granted; the orders of dismissal and denial of reconsideration are set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.