Apurillo v. Garciano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Criminal Case No. 1030, the respondent Judge issued an order confiscating the bail bond of accused Conrado Lawaan due to the bondsmen's failure to produce the accused for promulgation of judgment. Petitioner Juan Apurillo, one of the bondsmen, was notified of the promulgation and the subsequent attachment of his properties offered as bond. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion to be excluded as bondsman, alleging forgery of his signature on the bail bond. The respondent Judge, by order dated July 18, 1964, directed the Clerk of Court to investigate the alleged forgery. Petitioner and Municipal Judge Antonio Brillo appeared for the investigation, testified, and their testimonies were reduced to writing. The Clerk of Court submitted a report finding petitioner's signature to be genuine. Based on this report, the respondent Judge denied petitioner's motion in an order dated August 13, 1964. The Petition: Without filing a motion for reconsideration of the August 13, 1964 order, petitioner filed an original action for prohibition with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion for denial of due process and lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. He sought to desist respondents from confiscating his property and to be granted a fair hearing on the forgery issue.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to be excluded as bondsman without affording him due process. Whether petitioner failed to exhaust available remedies before filing the petition for prohibition.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The respondent Judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion and petitioner was afforded due process. Petitioner failed to exhaust available remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and due process: The Court found that the petitioner was not denied due process. The record showed that the court heard the motion, referred the matter of alleged forgery to the Clerk of Court as a commissioner for investigation, notified the petitioner of the investigation, and petitioner appeared and testified, confronting the adverse witness. The Clerk of Court's report, based on sworn testimonies, was submitted to the court, which then acted upon it. The Court held that due process requires a tribunal clothed with judicial power, lawful acquisition of jurisdiction, an opportunity to be heard, and judgment upon lawful hearing, all of which were present. The procedure of referring the matter to the Clerk of Court as commissioner was sanctioned by the Rules of Court, and the judge's adoption of the commissioner's findings was also permissible. The objection to the commissioner's qualification as not being a handwriting expert could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, as a motion for revocation of reference should have been filed in the trial court. Furthermore, the claim of irregularity due to non-observance of notice of filing of the commissioner's report and setting it for hearing was dismissed, citing precedent that due process is satisfied if parties are duly represented and given an opportunity to be heard during the investigation, even if the report is not formally set for hearing. On the issue of failure to exhaust available remedies: The Court reiterated the general rule that a motion for reconsideration must be filed before resorting to special civil actions like prohibition. Petitioner had the remedy of a motion for reconsideration of the August 13, 1964 order, which he did not avail of. The circumstances did not warrant an exemption from this general rule, as a motion for reconsideration was a plain and adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for prohibition was premature.
Main Doctrine
A writ of prohibition will not issue unless the party against whom it is sought has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Failure to seek a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for prohibition, when such remedy is available, is a ground for dismissal.