Garcia v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property was filed before the Sandiganbayan against Major General Carlos F. Garcia, his wife, and two sons (Garcia, et al.) under Republic Act No. 1379 (RA 1379). Procedural History: On 17 November 2004, Garcia, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over forfeiture petitions under RA 1379. On the same date, Garcia filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 165835) with the Supreme Court questioning the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. While G.R. No. 165835 was pending, the forfeiture action proceeded. The Republic filed a motion to expunge the Motion to Dismiss due to a defective notice of hearing, to declare Garcia, et al. in default, and to render judgment by default. On 20 January 2005, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Dismiss and granted the Republic's motion, declaring Garcia, et al. in default and setting the case for ex parte reception of evidence. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction, the Motion to Dismiss was a fatal procedural defect, and proceedings should not be deferred due to the pendency of G.R. No. 165835. Garcia, et al. filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Admit Attached Answer, arguing for judicial courtesy and that the proceedings should be held in abeyance. The Republic opposed, stating the motion was not the proper remedy and failed to allege grounds for relief from default. On 3 February 2005, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration, holding judicial courtesy inapplicable and that the motion did not comply with the requisites for relief from default. The Petition: Garcia filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions of 20 January 2005 and 3 February 2005.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner in default. Whether the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner was timely and tolled the running of the period to file an answer. Whether the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions dated 20 January 2005 and 3 February 2005 are valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upheld the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions dated 20 January 2005 and 3 February 2005, and ordered the Sandiganbayan to resume proceedings with deliberate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the declaration of default: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner in default. The petitioner's Motion to Dismiss was found to be a mere scrap of paper due to a fatally defective notice of hearing, which failed to comply with the mandatory ten (10)-day period prescribed by Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Such a defective motion does not toll the running of the period to file an answer. Consequently, petitioner's failure to file an answer within the reglementary period justified the declaration of default upon motion of the Republic. On the timeliness and effect of the Motion to Dismiss: The Court reiterated that a motion with a defective notice of hearing is pro forma and not entitled to judicial cognizance. The petitioner's argument that the underlying principle of due process was met because the motion was set for a definite date and time was rejected, citing Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals, which emphasizes the mandatory nature of the ten-day period. The Sandiganbayan's act of ruling on the merits of the defective motion was considered an innocuous error, as it did not cure the fundamental flaw of the motion itself. Therefore, the filing of the Motion to Dismiss did not interrupt the running of the period to file an answer. On the validity of the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions: The Court found no merit in petitioner's contention that his Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Admit Attached Answer was timely filed and should have prevented the declaration of default. The Court noted that this motion did not address the grounds for default but rather focused on the denial of the Motion to Dismiss and the pendency of G.R. No. 165835. Furthermore, it failed to comply with the requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court for lifting an order of default, specifically the showing of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and the existence of a meritorious defense. The Sandiganbayan correctly denied this motion, as it did not properly seek relief from the order of default.
Main Doctrine
A motion with a fatally defective notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper, legally non-existent, and does not toll the running of the prescriptive period to file an answer, rendering the subsequent declaration of default proper.