Carandang v. Cabatuando
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose Carandang was the caretaker of private respondent Consuelo D. Pandy's 1.5-hectare coconut land. Respondent Pandy filed a petition for ejectment and damages against petitioner, alleging gross violation of their agreement, including failure to properly clear and care for the land, feeding hogs and chickens with coconuts from the landholding, and selling copra without notification. Procedural History: Petitioner failed to file an answer after being served with summons and a copy of the complaint. Consequently, the agrarian court declared him in default. Petitioner's motion to set aside the order of default was denied for failure to allege facts constituting a valid and meritorious defense. The court then rendered a decision ex parte, ordering petitioner to vacate the landholding, pay damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. An order of execution was issued but later set aside to determine indemnification for petitioner under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199. Petitioner submitted a "bill of accounting" claiming P9,000.00 for labor and plantings. An ocular inspection was conducted, and its report was submitted. The court, considering the report and manifestations, ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for petitioner to vacate, deeming paragraphs 2 and 3 of the decision satisfied. A writ of execution was served, and subsequently, an order of demolition for petitioner's house was issued. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction, alleging denial of his day in court, lack of proper indemnification, and grave abuse of discretion by the respondent court. He prayed for the nullification of the proceedings and enjoining the execution and demolition.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the petitioner in default and refusing to lift said order. Whether the trial court's decision was void for being based on 'self-serving' testimony. Whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to due process regarding his claim for indemnification. Whether the special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order issued by this Court is ordered lifted. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring petitioner in default as he failed to file a responsive pleading within the five-day reglementary period provided under the rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR). Applying Rule 18, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court emphasized that a motion to lift an order of default must show both excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. Since the petitioner failed to allege specific facts constituting a valid defense in either his motion or supporting affidavit, the trial court's denial was perfectly legal. The Court cited Manzanillo v. Jaramilla, noting that nothing is gained by setting aside a default order if no meritorious defense exists. On Issue 2: The Court rejected the argument that the respondent's testimony was 'self-serving.' It clarified that 'self-serving evidence' refers to extrajudicial statements made by a party out of court and does not encompass a party's testimony given under oath in open court. Under Section 18, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, any person interested in the outcome of a case may testify. The Court relied on National Development Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Commission, stating that the testimony of an interested witness must be judged on its merits and, if clear and convincing, may be believed. On Issue 3: The Court found that Carandang was not denied due process; he was given notice and multiple opportunities to be heard on the issue of indemnity. The Court noted that the trial judge specifically set hearings and an ocular inspection to determine the amount under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199, but Carandang failed to appear at several of these hearings or object to the inspection report. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the law limits indemnity to labor and expenses for the 'improvement of the crop raised.' Since the land was coconut land, Carandang was not entitled to indemnity for other fruit trees (e.g., mango, santol) which were not essential to the coconut crop, following the doctrine in Paz v. Court of Agrarian Relations. On Issue 4: The Court ruled that certiorari is not the proper remedy because the petitioner had the remedy of appeal, which he failed to utilize. Citing Mabuhay Insurance & Guaranty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal unless there is a jurisdictional error. Since the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, any errors in findings or conclusions were errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, and should have been raised through a timely appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not prosper if the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by way of appeal, and failed to avail of it. Furthermore, a motion to lift an order of default must state facts constituting a meritorious defense and excusable neglect; otherwise, its denial does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.