Davao Light & Power v. Canizares-Nye
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (DLPC) was the defendant in a case filed by private respondent Jesus Pacquing for damages arising from a mandatory injunction bond DLPC had filed for the reconnection of electric services. The preliminary mandatory writ was annulled by the Court of Appeals, which was permanently enjoined by said appellate court. DLPC had filed a motion for hearing on its claim for damages against the injunction bond. Procedural History: After the case was remanded, private respondent made no move to prosecute its action. DLPC prematurely filed a motion for hearing on its damages claim, to which no action was taken. A year later, DLPC filed a motion to set the case for trial on the merits and its counterclaim. A notice of hearing was issued for October 20, 1981. However, the surety on the bond was not served notice, indicating the damages claim was not yet set for hearing. The Petition: On October 10, 1981, DLPC filed an urgent motion for postponement of the October 20th hearing, citing counsel's need to attend a Supreme Court hearing the next day in Manila. Respondent judge denied the postponement and dismissed DLPC's claim for damages. A motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and dismissing petitioner's claim for damages, thereby violating due process requirements.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the questioned orders and directed the respondent judge to hear and resolve in due course petitioner's application for damages on the respondent's injunction bond.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and violation of due process: The Court held that the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in violation of due process requirements. The denial of the first requested postponement and the premature dismissal of petitioner's claim for damages were found to be an improvident exercise of judicial discretion. The Court emphasized that the postponement was the first requested by the petitioner and no substantial right of the respondent would be affected. Furthermore, the respondent had failed to prosecute its action for over four years. The Court noted that the postponement was not intended for delay, as petitioner's counsel had to attend a Supreme Court hearing in Manila the following day, making it impossible to attend the hearing in Davao City. The counsel's health also did not permit such exertion. The Court also pointed out that petitioner's application for damages on the wrongfully issued injunction bond could be heard at any time before final judgment, as provided in Rule 58, Section 9 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the damages claim was not even ready for hearing, as the surety had not been given notice. The Court reiterated its admonitions in Tandoc vs. Court of Appeals and Cucio vs. Court of Appeals that judicial discretion must be exercised wisely and prudently, with a view to substantial justice and fairness, rather than arbitrary and inflexible denial.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to a violation of due process when denying a first request for postponement on justifiable grounds and prematurely dismissing a claim for damages, especially when the opposing party has been remiss in prosecuting its action.