Chu v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Corazon Gonzales was a lessee of a stall and verbally subleased it to respondent Go Lea Chu. Petitioner assigned her 15-year leasehold right to R & R Realty Company for P11,000.00, with P5,500.00 paid to her and the remaining P5,500.00 to be paid after final judgment in Civil Case No. 111371. Respondent Go Lea Chu received P2,000.00 from R & R Realty Company for vacating the stall. Procedural History: On February 28, 1964, the hearing was called, but petitioner's counsel was ten minutes late. The respondent Judge dismissed petitioner's complaint and ordered an ex-parte hearing on Go Lea Chu's counterclaim. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on March 2, 1964, along with a decision dismissing the complaint and ordering petitioner to pay Go Lea Chu half of the amount received from R & R Realty Company plus attorney's fees. Petitioner's counsel filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 11, 1964, as pro forma. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and motion for extension on June 2, 1964. On June 5, 1964, an order of execution was issued, followed by a garnishment, leading to R & R Realty Company paying P3,500.00 to Go Lea Chu. Surprisingly, on June 10, 1964, the respondent Judge issued an order granting petitioner 30 days to file her record on appeal. The Petition: Aggrieved by the dismissal of her complaint and the subsequent execution of the judgment, Corazon Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking a re-trial or the right to appeal. The Court of Appeals set aside the order and decision of the respondent Judge, ordering a re-trial and the deposit of the P3,500.00 collected by Go Lea Chu.
Issue(s)
Whether certiorari was the appropriate remedy. Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner's complaint due to tardiness of counsel. Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment which had not yet become final and executory. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the deposit of the P3,500.00 collected by respondent Go Lea Chu.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that certiorari was the proper remedy and that the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint and in ordering the execution of the judgment. The Court ordered the affirmation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appropriateness of certiorari: The Court held that certiorari was the appropriate remedy because the respondent Judge was charged with capricious and whimsical exercise of judicial power amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Ordinary appeal would have been the remedy if the lower court's decision were not tainted by such abuse, but the circumstances justified the resort to extraordinary relief to correct the denial of the petitioner's day in court and the erroneous issuance of execution. On the dismissal of the complaint due to tardiness: The Court found that the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint and the order for an ex-parte hearing on the counterclaim due to counsel's ten-minute tardiness constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a litigant should not be easily denied their day in court for such a short delay, especially when an explanation was offered and the dismissal was with prejudice. The Court cited previous rulings where similar short tardiness was considered an abuse of discretion, stressing the need for judicial tolerance and humanity. On the execution of the judgment: The Court ruled that the writ of execution was issued in grave abuse of discretion because the judgment had not yet become final and executory. The filing of a motion for reconsideration, which was not pro forma, suspended the period for appeal. The Court noted that the trial judge himself later granted an extension to file the record on appeal, contradicting his earlier assertion that the judgment was final and executory. The issuance of execution without good reasons and based on a mistaken belief of finality was deemed an abuse of discretion. On the deposit of collected funds: The Court upheld the Court of Appeals' power to order the deposit of the P3,500.00 collected by Go Lea Chu. The Court reasoned that the Court of Appeals, in exercising its supervisory power to correct the erroneous execution, could direct the return of funds improperly obtained. Furthermore, the Court cited its inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice and the provision in the Rules of Court allowing suitable processes to carry jurisdiction into effect, even if not specifically pointed out by law.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to assail orders issued with grave abuse of discretion, particularly when a party is deprived of their day in court or when a writ of execution is issued based on a judgment that has not yet become final and executory.