Kilosbayan Foundation v. Janolo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a petition filed by Gregory Ong with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 264, seeking the amendment, correction, or annotation of his birth certificate concerning his citizenship. This petition followed a prior Supreme Court decision in Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, which had enjoined Ong from assuming a position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court until he successfully established his natural-born Filipino citizenship through appropriate adversarial proceedings. Procedural History: The RTC, presided over by Judge Leoncio Janolo, Jr., set Ong's petition for hearing. Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation, as oppositors, filed a motion for voluntary inhibition against the judge, citing shared affiliations with San Beda Law alumni and public endorsements of Ong's petition. The RTC denied this motion, and despite a pending motion for reconsideration, proceeded to hear Ong's petition. The oppositors were subsequently declared in default. Their motion to vacate the default order was also denied, and the RTC ultimately granted Ong's petition, recognizing him as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The Petition: Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation, through this petition for certiorari and prohibition, assail the RTC's orders and decision. They argue that the presiding judge committed grave abuse of discretion by (a) not voluntarily inhibiting himself, (b) declaring them in default, and (c) granting Ong's petition. The petitioners contend that the judge's affiliation with an alumni association and the perceived haste in resolving motions demonstrated bias. They also challenge the default order, asserting that their motion for inhibition and reconsideration constituted a prejudicial issue that should have been resolved first. The Supreme Court, however, found procedural defects in the petition, including a defective verification and improper service, but ultimately addressed the substantial issues.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners availed themselves of an improper remedy and disregarded the hierarchy of courts. Whether the petition suffers from a defective verification and lack of service on all adverse parties. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for voluntary inhibition. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners in default and denying their motion to vacate the order of default. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Ong's petition for correction of citizenship.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and hierarchy of courts: The Court held that a petition for certiorari to assail an order of default and the judgment of default is procedurally allowable, citing Cerezo v. Tuazon. However, the petition was dismissed for failing to establish special and important reasons to warrant a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, thus disregarding the hierarchy of courts. The Court emphasized that such direct recourse requires clear and specific allegations of exceptional circumstances, which were absent in the petitioners' pleading. On the defective verification and lack of service: The Court found the petition's verification defective for failing to state the basis thereof, treating it as an unsigned pleading. Furthermore, the affiant failed to present competent evidence of identity before the notary public. The Court also noted the failure to furnish public respondent with a copy of the petition, which is a ground for dismissal. These procedural infirmities, on their own, rendered the petition susceptible to dismissal. On the denial of the motion for voluntary inhibition: The Court reiterated that voluntary inhibition is a matter of conscience and sound discretion, requiring just or valid reasons. Bare allegations of bias and prejudice are insufficient; clear and convincing evidence is necessary. The Court found that the petitioners' sole ground for inhibition—the affiliation with an alumni association—was not a sufficient basis, as organizational affiliation per se does not automatically disqualify a judge. No clear and convincing evidence was presented to show that the judge actively participated in the alumni association's endorsement of Ong's petition or that such affiliation compelled partiality. On the declaration of default and denial of motion to vacate: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the declaration of default. Petitioners failed to file an opposition within the reglementary period, even after an extension was granted. Their motion to vacate the order of default was unverified, failed to explain the reason for non-compliance, and lacked an affidavit of merit, thus failing to comply with Rule 9, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Court. The filing of a motion for inhibition does not toll the period to file a responsive pleading. The Court also noted the absence of a meritorious defense. On the granting of the petition for correction of citizenship: The Court found no additional grounds to substantiate the imputation of grave abuse of discretion regarding the RTC's Decision. The Court affirmed that proceedings under Rule 108 are adversarial in nature, and the State's interest was represented by the OSG. Petitioners' failure to appear and file a responsive pleading meant their interest was deemed waived. The Court did not make a definitive pronouncement on the substantial aspect of the decision due to the lack of further issues raised by the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing an order of default and the judgment of default is procedurally allowable. However, direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction requires special and important reasons, which were absent in this case. Bare allegations of bias and prejudice are insufficient to warrant inhibition; clear and convincing evidence is required. A motion to lift an order of default must be under oath, show fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and demonstrate a meritorious defense.