GR L 30247; (January, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30247 January 31, 1972
VICTOR H. M. GUTIERREZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NUMERIANO ESTENZO, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES, BRANCH I, ROLANDO FELICIANO and JOSE T. NERY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Victor Gutierrez filed an action for forcible entry against respondents Rolando Feliciano and Jose Nery in the City Court of Olongapo, which ruled in his favor. The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance of Zambales. The case was set for pre-trial on September 26, 1968, but was postponed due to the respondents’ absence. It was re-scheduled for December 11, 1968. On this date, the petitioner and his counsel failed to appear. The respondents moved for dismissal, which the trial judge granted in open court.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, alleging under oath that his failure to attend was due to excusable negligence. He swore he was at the bedside of his dying father in Macabebe, Pampanga, during the pre-trial date. The trial court denied his motion for lack of merit. The petitioner then filed this certiorari petition, arguing the dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for the petitioner’s failure to appear at the pre-trial conference?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the court’s inequitable application of procedural rules and its failure to properly consider a valid excuse. First, the court exhibited partiality in handling party absences. When the respondents failed to appear at the initial pre-trial, the court merely postponed the hearing instead of declaring them in default as authorized by procedural rules. Conversely, when the petitioner failed to appear, the court rigidly applied the rules and immediately dismissed the case. This inconsistent treatment violated the fundamental requirement of impartiality.
Second, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the petitioner’s verified and uncontroverted excuse. The sworn motion stated the petitioner was attending to his dying father, a serious and compelling reason that constituted excusable negligence. The respondents did not refute this factual allegation. The court’s dismissal, despite this valid justification and without a showing that the excuse was contrived for delay, was arbitrary. Furthermore, delay would be against the petitioner’s interest, as he was the prevailing party in the inferior court seeking to enforce a judgment for possession. Therefore, the dismissal orders were annulled and the case remanded for further proceedings.