G.R. No. L-24105 May 18, 1967
Jaime Balite, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Judge Domingo Cabangon, Delfin Macadangdang, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jaime Balite was the tenant on a 15-hectare land owned by respondents Delfin Macadangdang and six others. The landowners filed a petition for ejectment against Balite in the Court of Agrarian Relations on June 3, 1963, alleging their desire to personally cultivate the land and that the tenant had agreed to surrender it. Balite filed an answer on May 26, 1964, resisting the petition by claiming that a prior amicable settlement in another case barred his ejectment. An amended petition was filed on August 28, 1964. During the pre-trial conference on September 26, 1964, at 10 a.m., neither Balite nor his counsel appeared, prompting the court to declare him in default. His counsel arrived at 11:25 a.m., citing traffic delay, and filed a motion to lift the default order. This motion was denied on October 3, 1964, for not being under oath as required by the Rules of Court. Balite’s counsel received the denial order on October 9, 1964. Subsequent motions, including a motion for leave to amend the motion for reconsideration (filed October 21, 1964, denied October 29, 1964) and a motion for reconsideration of the denial orders (filed November 27, 1964, denied December 16, 1964), were all denied. Finally, Balite filed a petition for relief from the default order, which was denied on January 13, 1965, for being filed late. Balite then filed the present petition for prohibition with this Court on February 3, 1965, seeking to have the default order lifted and to be allowed to present his evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief from the order of default on the ground that it was filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found that the respondent Judge erred in computing the period for filing the petition for relief. The Judge incorrectly calculated the elapsed time as 83 days (67 days from October 9 to November 27, 1964, plus 16 days from December 21, 1964 to January 5, 1965). The correct computation was 49 days (from October 9 to November 27, 1964) plus 16 days, totaling 65 days. Thus, the petition was late by only five days, not twenty-three. The Court ruled that a few days’ excess beyond the 60-day period is not fatal, provided the petition is filed within six months from the date of the order, which was satisfied in this case. Furthermore, the Court of Agrarian Relations, while governed by the Rules of Court, is not bound by technicalities of procedure under the Agricultural Land Reform Code. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition for relief constituted serious abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The remedy of appeal was deemed inadequate as it does not stay execution of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations. The Court set aside the order dismissing the petition for relief and ordered further proceedings on said petition in accordance with Rule 38, staying the ejectment proceedings in the meantime.