Dimayacyac v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute over a parcel of land co-owned by Brigida Allones and Alfredo Barro. Allones sold her share to Reynaldo P. Dimayacyac. Subsequently, Barro filed a civil case to exercise his right of redemption over the share sold to Dimayacyac. 2. Procedural History: After the parties joined issues in the trial court, the judge set a pre-trial conference and ordered the filing of pre-trial briefs three days prior. The defendants, Dimayacyac and Allones, failed to file their brief on time but attended the conference and tendered it with an explanation for the delay. Despite this, the judge declared them in default upon motion by the plaintiff and allowed the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. A decision was rendered against Dimayacyac. The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a special civil action for certiorari with injunction with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed their petition, ruling that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy and that the decision had become final. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Reynaldo P. Dimayacyac and Brigida Allones, dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' dismissal, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. They argued that certiorari was the more appropriate and adequate remedy because an appeal would not allow for a review of their evidence, as they were not given an opportunity to present it due to being declared in default. They contended that the trial judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by declaring them in default for failing to submit a pre-trial brief three days before the conference, a requirement not strictly mandated by the Rules of Court, especially when they appeared at the conference itself. The Supreme Court treated the petition as a special civil action for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy. Whether the trial judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring the petitioners in default and rendering judgment against them.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the lower court dated August 7, 1978, is vacated, and Civil Case No. 29061 is ordered to be re-tried after a pre-trial conference shall have been conducted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that while the ordinary remedy for a party declared in default is appeal, certiorari may still lie when an appeal does not prove to be a more speedy and adequate remedy. The Court agreed with the petitioners that certiorari was the more appropriate and adequate remedy because they were not given an opportunity to present their evidence, rendering an appeal inadequate as it would only review self-serving evidence presented ex parte. The Court cited Association of Beverage Employees vs. Figueras and Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which provide a remedy for grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that certiorari under Rule 65 has no strict time frame, only requiring it to be filed within a reasonable time, thus making the finality of the lower court's decision irrelevant for the purpose of the petition. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring the petitioners in default. Grave abuse of discretion was defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, or the exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner. The Court pointed out that Rule 20, Section 2 of the Rules of Court allows a party to be declared in default for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, but the petitioners did appear. Their failure was to submit a pre-trial brief three days before the scheduled date, which the Court noted is not a strict requirement for appearing at the conference itself. The Court of Appeals itself observed that the declaration of default was "somewhat hurriedly" made solely for the failure to submit the pre-trial brief, and that trial courts should use the power to declare a party in default sparingly, as it deprives the party of the right to offer evidence.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari may be availed of even if an appeal is available, if the appeal does not prove to be a more speedy and adequate remedy, particularly when a grave abuse of discretion is alleged.