GR L 57173; (January, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57173. January 17, 1983. PURIFICACION V. ADVENTO, petitioner, vs. HON. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, Presiding Judge of City Court, Manila, Branch VII, HON. ERNESTO C. TENGCO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XV, and GUILLERMO LACHICA, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from an ejectment suit. During the initial hearing, petitioner Adviento and her counsel arrived late. Respondent Judge Mijares granted private respondent Lachica’s motion to present evidence ex-parte. Adviento filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted, with the judge stating that justice would be better served by allowing cross-examination and the presentation of defense evidence. The hearing was reset to March 4, 1980. On that date, Adviento and counsel arrived 15 minutes late due to counsel’s prior court appearance in another case. Despite this, Judge Mijares, through a verbal order, deemed Adviento to have waived her right to cross-examine and considered the case submitted for decision based on the ex-parte evidence.
Adviento’s motions for reconsideration were denied. She then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance (CFI), presided by Judge Tengco, which was dismissed. Subsequently, her petition with the Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leading to this petition before the Supreme Court, treated as one for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Mijares committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order of March 4, 1980, which considered the case submitted for decision due to petitioner’s 15-minute tardiness.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Judge Mijares committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that while punctuality is a duty of counsel, procedural rules should be liberally interpreted to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions. A 15-minute tardiness, explained by counsel’s concurrent professional obligation in another court, constitutes excusable negligence and not a gross disregard of duty. The severe penalty of forfeiting the right to be heard and to present evidence was disproportionate to the minor infraction.
The Court found that Judge Mijares’ earlier order recognized the value of cross-examination and a full hearing for justice. Her subsequent order, based solely on brief tardiness, arbitrarily deprived petitioner of this opportunity. Judges must exercise patience and impartiality, avoiding arbitrary power. The overriding objective is to decide cases on their merits. Consequently, the challenged orders were annulled and set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court to allow petitioner to cross-examine the private respondent and to present her evidence.